SItjp  i.  '£.  Itll  3itbrara 


^ovtl}  (Earoliita  ^tal?  Initiprflitg 


SB608 
P3S5 


1*7089 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

NCSU  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/peachyellowsprelOOsmit 


DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BOTANICAL  DIYISIOX. 

BULLEiTiisr  :>^o.  9. 


SECTION  OF  VEGETABLE  PATHOLOGY. 


;E^EACH  YELLOWS: 


A  PRELIMINARY  REPORT . 


BY 


ElRAV^IISr   F.   S]MITH,   B.   So. 


SPECIAL  AGENT. 


y  A 


PREPARED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  COMMISSIONER  OF  AGRICULTURE. 


YV^ASHINGTOIsr: 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING   OFFICE, 

ISSS. 
IIL'45— Xo.  9 1 


/ 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  the  report  of  Mr.  Erwiii 
F.  Smith,  who  was  appointed  by  you  as  a  special  agent  to  investigate 
peach  yellows,  under  the  direction  of  this  section.  This  report  em- 
bodies the  researches  so  far  made  by  Mr.  Smith  as  well  as  a  history  of 
the  disease  in  this  country. 
Eespectfully, 

B.  T.  Galloway, 
Chief  of  the  Section  of  Vegetable  Pathology. 
Norman  J.  Colmats^, 

Commissioner  of  Agriculture. 


1 7081 


LETTER    OF     SUBMITTAL. 


Washington,  D.  C,  November  10,  1888. 
Sib  :  This  preliminary  report,  prepared  by  request  iii  advance  of  a 
report  ou  the  aetiology  of  the  "  yellows,"  embraces  all  the  trustworthy 
information  I  have  been  able  to  gather  during  sixteen  months  of  con- 
tinuous observation  and  inquiry.  It  is  too  much  to  expect  that  it  is 
entirely  free  from  errors,  but  every  statement  has  been  repeatedly  scru- 
tinized, and  an  honest  endeavor  has  been  made  to  briug  each  one  to  the 
test  of  actual  facts,  irrespective  of  previous  opinion. 

The  iield  work  received  special  attention,  and  will,  I  think,  throw 
light  upon  a  number  of  important  points. 

Some  experiments  have  been  completed,  some  are  now  under  way, 
and  some  remain  to  be  performed.  Much  additional  field  work  and  a 
large  body  of  very  important  microscopic  work  remain  to  be  done  be- 
fore definite  conclusions  can  be  reached  as  to  the  cause  of  the  disease 
In  m}- judgment,  however,  the  results  already  obtained  are  sutficient  to 
warrant  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  investigation  in  the  field  and 
in  the  laboratory,  and  to  lead  to  the  belief  that  the  cause  of  the  disease 
will  bo  defiuitely  settled  in  the  near  future. 

Throughout  the  investigation  peach  growers  in  all  parts  of  the  coun- 
try have  manifested  a  very  lively  interest,  and  have  materially  facili- 
tated my  work. 

Very  respectfully, 

Erwin  F.  Smith, 

Special  Agent. 
To  B.  T.  Galloway, 

Chief  of  the  Section  of  Vegetable  Pathology, 

Department  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Pag©. 
1.  History  and  distribution  : 

(1)  Fruits  affected,  etc 9 

(2)  GeograpWcal  distribution 9 

(3)  Early  history  of  peach  growing  in  the  eastern  United  States,  show- 

ing marked  suitability  of  climate 10 

(4)  First  appearance  of  yellows 17 

(5)  Extension  of  yellows  since  1830 23 

(a)  Northward  and  northeastward  movement 23 

(&)  Westward  and  northwestward  movement 32 

(c)  Sauthwestward  movement 53 

(6)  Conclusions  drawn  from  history  and  literature  of  yellows 83 

II.  Characteristics  of  the  disease  (drawn  from  field  studies) 84 

(1)  First  year  of  attack 85 

(2)  Second  year  of  attack 90 

(3)  Third  and  later  years 91 

(4)  Digest  of  symptoms 93 

(5)  Diseases  mistaken  for  yellows 93 

III.  Losses  due  to  yellows  : 

(1)  Destructive  nature  of  the  malady  (field  studies) 96 

(2)  Extent  of  i)each  industry  in  the  United  States 107 

(3)  Value  of  peach  products 108 

(4)  Value  of  peach  farms Ill 

(5)  Depreciation  of  real  estate  due  to  yellows 112 

IV.  Conditions  known  or  supposed  to  favor  the  disease  : 

(1)  Climatic  conditions 114 

(a)  Non-adaptation  of  the  peach  to  our  climate 114 

(&)  Supposed  general  change  in  climatic  conditions 115 

(c)  Early  autumn  frosts 115 

(d)  Cold  winters 120 

(e)  Excessive  rain-fall 122 

(2)  Earth  conditions 124 

(a)  Exhaustion  or  infertility  of  soil 124 

(b)  Wet  aud  rich  soils.: 140 

(3)  Artificial  or  culture  conditions   

(a)  Neglect  of  cultivation 141 

(6)  Neglect  of  pruning 141 

(c)  Excessive  use  of  nitrogenous  manures 142 

(d)  Degeneracy  due  to  continued  propagation  by  budding 142 

(e)  Propagation  by  means  of  imperfect  or  diseased  pits 143 

(/)  Diseased  buds - 149 

(g)  Spread  of  the  disease  by  infected  pruning  knives  or  saws 155 

(h)  Nurseries  not  responsible  for  all  of  the  outbreaks 155 

7 


8  CONTENTS. 

-i  Page. 

IV.    CoKblTlOXS   KNOWN   oil   SUPPOSED  TO   FAVOR  THE  DISEASE— Coutinued. 

(4)  Media nical  or  vital  iiijiirios 

(a)  Injuries  by  men  or  qaadrupeds 15d 

(6)  Injury  by  borers 158 

( c)  Root  aphides 160 

(d)  Fungi 165 

V.  Restrictive  Legislation  : 

(1)  Wliere  it  has  beea  tried 170 

(2)  What  has  been  accomplished 171 

(3)  Wliar  may  be  hoped 177 

VI.  Conclusions  as  to  cause  oxi"  yellows  : 

(1)  Hyi)olheses  ruled  out 178 

(2)  Hypotheses  probably  ruled  out 179 

(ii)  Remaining  probable  hypotheses 179 

Appen'dix  a. — Chemical  analj'ses 181 

Appendix  H. — Legal  enactments 198 

Explanation  of  plates 209 

Maps.  (Seven  orchard  maps ;  one  map  of  infected  district  iu  New  Jersey,  Mary- 
land, and  Delaware ;  one  map  of  United  States.) 
Plates.  (Lithographic  and  photo -engraved,  37  iu  uumber. ) 
Index 213 


CORRIGENDA. 

Page 27,  read  "I.  M.  Smalley"  for  "J.  McSmalley." 

Page  51,  the  .statemeut  for  Kent  Couuty,  in  sixth  line  of  seventh  paragraph,  must  be 
modified  slightly,  Charles  W.  Gartipld  having  seen  premature  peaches  due  to  ye'lows 
on  oue  tree  of  Early  Alexander,  iu  July,  1882,  on  the  farm  of  William  H.  Anderson, 
iu  Sparta  township,  12  miles  northwest  of  Grand  Rapids.     The  tree  was  dug  out,  and 
careful  search  revealed  no  others  in  that  orchard  or  elsewhere  iu  the  township. 
Pago  63,  i'lTst  foot-note,  for  "152  (?)  car-loads"  read  "  102  car-loads." 
Pajre  210,  second  paragraph,  read  "one  foi'ty-fifth"  instead  of  "one  thirty-fifth." 
Map  IV,  southeast  corner,  the  circle  printed  by  mistake  on  the  yellow  dot  should 
berfa<l  on  the  green  dot  next  oaBt. 


PEACH   YELLOWS 


By  Eiiwix  F.  Smith,  B.  Sc. 


I.  HISTORY  AXD  DISTRIBUTION. 

I'UriTS   AFFECTED,    ETC. 

Yellows  is  a  disease  of  peaches,  uectarines,  aluiouds,  and  apricots. 
It  does  not  occur  in  plums.  I  have  myself  seen  it  only  in  peaches,  uec- 
tarines, and  apricots,  but  the  evidence  that  it  also  occurs  occasionallj' 
in  almonds  is  reasonably  satisfactory.  In  apricots  it  is  rare.  The  two 
trees  which  I  have  seen  were  covered  with  the  characteristic  shoots  (see 
Photographs  XXII  and  XXIII),  but  bore  no  fruit,  so  I  can  not  tell  how 
it  might  affect  the  latter.  Xoyes  Darling  also  saw  it  in  apricots,  but  did 
not  see  the  diseased  fruit. 

The  peach  is  most  inclined  to  this  disease,  and  for  that  reason  I  shall 
confine  my  study  to  the  effects  on  that  tree. 

The  name  yellows  was  first  applied  to  this  disease,  near  Philadelphia, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  century,  as  we  shall  see  later.  This  term  has 
passed  into  universal  acceptance,  but  the  origin  of  the  malady  is  un- 
known, It  was  much  written  upon  in  the  early  part  of  ihe  century  and 
has  engaged  the  attention  of  horticultural  writers  from  that  time  to 
this.  Xevertheless,  its  nature  is  but  little  better  understood  today 
than  it  was  fifty  years  ago. 

GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION. 

Peach  yellows  appears  to  be  confined  exclusively  to  the  Eastern 
United  States.  I  can  find  no  reference  to  its  occurrence  in  California  or 
anywhere  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  acd  it  is  doubtful  if  it  occurs 
to  any  extent  west  of  the  Mississippi  River.  At  least  the  peach  grow- 
ers of  Kansas,  Missouri,  and  Texas  affirm  that  it  does  not  occur  in  their 
orchards.  To  determine,  positiveh',  however,  that  the  orchards  in 
these  States  are  exempt  would  require  a  careful  examination  by  some 
one  familiar  with  the  disease,  because  where  orchards  are  small  and 
scattering  the  disease  might  remain  localized  and  be  overlooked  for 
many  years. 


fWfERTY  UBMRT 
K.  C.  State  College 


10  ■   SPECIAL    REPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Yellows  is  now  more  or  less  prevalent  in  Massachusetts,  Connecti- 
cut, Xew  York,  Pennsylvania.  ISTew  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia, West  Virginia,  Ohio,  Michigan,  and  Ontario.  Very  likely  it 
occurs  to  a  considerable  exteut  in  Indiaua  and  Illinois,  and  probably 
also  to  a  limited  extent  in  some  parts  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Georgia, 
and  more  southern  States.  I  am  not  able  to  determine  the  exact  south- 
ern limits  of  the  disease.  It  should  be  said,  however,  that  its  presence 
is  generally  denied  in  all  the  Gulf  States,  where  also  it  may  be  added 
that  peach  raising  is  not  an  important  industry-.  I  have  myself  seen 
the  disease  in  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  West  Vir- 
ginia, and  Michigan. 

This  disease,  so  far  as  I  can  determine,  does  not  occur  anywhere  iu 
Europe.'  Whether  it  occurs  in  China,  Japan,  Algiers,  Cape  Colony, 
New  Zealand,  New  South  Wales,  Argentine  Eepnblic,  or  other  parts  of 
the  globe  where  peaches  are  extensively  planted  is  a  matter  for  future 
inquiry,  especially  with  reference  to  the  origin  of  tire  disease  or  to  its 
possible  introduction  from  this  country.  At  present  the  United  States 
appears  to  have  exclusive  possession  of  this  most  insidious  and  destruct- 
ive disease. 

KARLY   niSTORY   OF   PEACH-GROWING   IX   THE   UNIIKP   STATES. 

Peach  yellows  is  not  a  disease  of  recent  appearance.  It  has  been 
known  for  some  time  and  the  literature  of  the  subject  is  extensive.  For 
a  better  understanding  of  the  present  situation  it  is  desirable  to  learn 
as  much  as  possible  of  its  early  history,  and  also  of  the  early  history  of 
the  peach  in  this  country. 

'Sonic  of  tlie  authorities  for  this  statement  are  as  follows: 

(1)  M.  Pierre  Viala,  of  Montpelller,  France.  A  conversation  in  Washington  iu  No- 
Tember,  1887,  at  ■which  time  I  showed  him  specimens  and  was  told  that  nothing  of 
the  kind  occurred  in  southern  France  or  had  come  to  his  notice  anywhere  in  Europe. 

(2)  Mrs.  Bayle  Bernard.  Our  Common  Fruits.  Frederick  Warne  &  Co.,  London, 
18d(j,  p.  89. 

(3)  The  Gardeners'  Chronicle,  London,  1885,  p.  594.  In  a  review  of  one  of  Professor 
Penhallow's  papers  this  journal  speaks  of  yellows  in  a  vague  way,  as  *'  This  disease 
little  known  iu  this  country." 

(4)  The  London  Journal  of  Horticulture.  In  1882  this  jourual  speaks  of  a  new  peach 
disease  in  England  which  it  calls  yellows.  The  account  given  is  too  imperfect  to  war- 
rant any  conclusion  as  to  its  real  nature.  The  Gardeners'  Monthly,  Philadelphia,  1883, 
p.  15. 

(5)  T.  D.  Fish.  The  Hardi/  Fruit  Book,  London,  L.  Upcot  Gill,  170  Strand,  W.  C. 
No  date,  but  issued  between  lc80  and  1887.  This  author  describes  diseases  of  the 
peach,  devoting  a  short  paragraph  to  what  he  calls  "jaundice  or  yellows."  His  ac- 
count leads  one  to  think  he  has  in  mind  a  yellowing  of  the  foliage  due  to  other 
causes  than  the  disease  hero  in  question. 

(6)  Charles M.  Hovey.     Tran.^.  Mass.  Hort.  Society,  1882,  Part  I,  p.  131. 

(7)  An  English  Gardener.     The  Gardeners'  Monthly,  Phihulelphia,  1880,  p.  145. 

(8)  Prof.  J.  C.  Holmes.  lieport  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Michigan  State  Pomological 
Society,  1873,  p.  19. 


EARLY    HISTORY    OF    PEACH    IN    UNITED    STATES.  11 

It  is  uucertaia  exactly  wbeQ  peach  trees  were  first  introduced  iuto 
this  country,  but  it  was  prior  to  1033.  From  two  entries  in  the  records 
of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  Eng- 
land/ it  is  probable  that  they  were  introduced  into  the  Xew  England 
region  soon  after  the  year  1629.  On  page  24  of  the  first  volume  of  these 
records  is  an  undated  memorandum  of  things  "  to  prouide  to  send  for 
Xew  England,"  among  which  are  included  "stones  of  all  sorts  of  fruits, 
as  peaches,  plums,  filberts,  cherries."  Somewhat  later,  in  a  letter  of 
April  17,  1629,  from  Gravesend,  England,  by  the  governor  and  deputy 
of  the  New  England  Company  to  Capt.  John  Eudicott,  then  "  governor 
and  council  for  London's  plantation  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New 
England,"  we  read  (p.  392) : 

As  for  fruit  stones  and  kernels,  the  time  of  the  year  fits  not  to  send  them  now,  so 
we  purposo  to  do  it  pr.  our  next. 

In  1633  the  Dutch  sea-captain,  DeVries,  found  peach  trees  in  Vir- 
ginia in  the  garden  of  George  Minifle,  on  the  James  River,  between 
Blunt  Point  and  Jamestown.  They  were  the  first  seen  by  him  in  North 
America.     The  following  is  copied  from  the  entry  in  his  journal: 

Arrived  at  Littletowu,  where  Menifit  lives.  Ho  has  a  garden  of  two  acres,  full  of 
primroses,  apple,  pear,  and  cherry  trees.  "  *  *  Around  the  house  were  planted 
peach  trees,  which  were  hardly  in  bloom. 

Minifie  settled  there  in  1623.^ 

In  1635  appeared  the  following  mention  of  peach-growing  in  Mary- 
land : 

Although  there  be  not  many  that  do  apply  themselves  to  plant  gardens  and  or- 
chards, yet  those  that  do  it  find  much  profit  and  pleasure  thereby.     They  have  peares, 

(9)  Charles  Downing.  Beport  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Michigan  State  Pomological  Soci- 
ety, 1873,  p.  38.     Letter  of  April  24,  1873. 

(10)  James  Fitz.  The  Southern  Apple  and  Peach  CuUurist,  J.  AV.  Randolph  and  Eu- 
glish,  Richmond,  Va.,  1872,  p.  249. 

(11)  H.  W.  Sargent.  "A  visit  to  the  Loudon  Horticultural  Society's  garden." 
The  HorticuUurist,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1849,  p.  IG. 

(12)  Noyes  Darling.     The  Cultivalor.     Albany,  N.  Y.,  184G,  p.  141, 

(13)  A.  J.  Downing.  Fruits  and  Fruit  Trees  of  America.  New  York.  Page  varies 
in  different  editions. 

(14)  In  the  paper  by  H.  W.  Sargent,  previously  cited,  it  is  stated  that  Mr.  Thomp- 
son, of  the  gardens  of  the  Horticultural  Society  at  Cheswick,  "has  seen  one  instance 
only  of  a  disease  in  the  peach  tree  resembling  in  its  character  the  yellows.  It  was  an 
American  tree,  I  think  a  George  IV,  which  was  budded  on  a  peach  bottom  and  trained 
against  a  south  wall.  It  ripened  its  fruit  prematurely,  pushed  out  the  clusters  of 
small  narrow  leaves,  became  quite  yellow  in  foliage,  and  linally  died." 

(15)  I  have  examined  many  Euglish,  French  and  German  books  and  magazines 
devoted  to  horticulture  and  to  diseases  of  plants,  but  in  none  of  them  have  I  found 
any  account  of  yellows,  or  of  any  disease  resembling  it,  although  there  is  frequent 
mention  of  the  peach  and  of  its  diseases. 

1  Vol.  I.  1628-'41.  Edited  by  N.  B.  Shurtleff,  M.  D.,  and  published  by  the  Common- 
wealth.    Boston,  1853. 

•^Thc  Founders  of  Maryland,  etc.,  by  Rev.  Ed.  D.Neill,  A.  B.  Albany,  Joel  Munsell, 
1876,  pp.  52,  53. 


12  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

apiiles,  and  several  sorts  of  plammes,  peaches  in  abinidance,  aud  as  good  as  those  in 
Italy.' 

In  1G5G  Jolin  Hammoiul  wrote  of  au  earlier  period,'^  "  Orchards  iunu- 
merable  were  planted  aud  preserved"  (p.  9),  and  of  liis  own  time  : 

The  country  is  full  of  gallant  orchards,  and  (he  fruit  generally  more  luscious  and 
delightful  than  here.  Witness  the  peach  and  quince.  The  latter  may  be  eaten  ravv 
savourily;  the  former  differs  and  as  much  exceeds  ours  .-.s  the  best-relished  apple  we 
have  doth  the  crab,  and  of  both  most  excellent  and  comfortable  driuks  are  made 
(p.  i:i). 

Some  otlier  early  statements  are  as  follows: 

In  the  hot  suniiuer,  rock  cold  water,  with  an  eighth  of  peach  vinegar,  is  the  best 
beverage ;  peaches  better  than  apricots  by  some  doe  feed  hogs.  Oue  man  hath  ten 
thousand  trees." 

Fruits  they  have,  strawberries,  gooseberries,  etc.  ;  aud  for  fruits  brought  there 
and  planted,  apples,  pears,  quinces,  apricocks,  peaches,  and  many  more  kinds  ex- 
cellent good,  etc.^ 

In  orchards  [they  have]  all  sorts  of  apple  trees,  pear  trees,  quince,  peach,  apri- 
cocks, cherries,  fig  trees,  aud  viues."^ 

Mr.  Scbarf  declares  that : 

All  early  travelers  in  and  vrriters  about  Maryland  have  noted  the  fact  that  even 
before  the  first  generation  of  settlers  had  passed,  the  country  was  thickly  plauted  with 
orchards  of  apple  aud  peach  trees,  which  seeuied  to  grow  in  the  most  nourishing  way. 

It  is  certainly  remarkable  that  within  tweuty-two  years  after  the  landing  at  Saint 
Mary's  [in  1634]  orchards  should  have  become  a  notable  aud  even  conspicuous  feature 
in  the  landscape  ;   but  the  evideuce  of  the  fact  is  conclusive.''' 

To  the  effect  that  previous  to  1G83  ])each  trees  were  growing  thriftily 
in  considerable  numbers  in  other  parts  of  the  country,  there  are  state- 
ments by  at  least  four  persons,  Thomas  Campanins,  1043-'48,'  Lonis 
Hennepin,  1679-'82  ;»  Mahlon  Stacy,  IGSO;^  and  William  Penn,  1G83.'" 

'  A  lielatioii  of  Maryland.  Author  unknown.  Reprinted  from  the  Loudon  edition  of 
16.35,  with  a  prefatory  note  and  au  appendix,  by  Francis  L.  Hawks,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 
New  York,  Joseph  Sabiu,  1SG5.     p.  28. 

-Leah  and  Rachel ;  or  the  Two  Fruitful  tSisfers,  Virginia  and  Maryland,  by  John 
Haniiuond.  London,  16r)6.  Reprinted  in  Force's  Historical  Tracts.  Vol.  3.  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  1844. 

^'A  Description  of  the  Province  of  Xcw  Albion  [in  North  Virginia],  etc.  164S.  Reprinted 
in  Force's  Historical  Tracts.     Vol,  IL 

*A  Perfect  Description  of  Virfjinia.  etc.  Loudon,  1G49.  Force's  Historical  Tracts. 
Vol.  II. 

■'A  True  Belation  of  Viryinia  aud  Maryland,  by  Nathaniel  Sl.rigley.  Loudon,  16G9. 
Force.     Vol.111. 

'''History  of  Maryland,  by  J.  Thomas  Scharf.    Baltimore,  1879.     Vol.  I,  p.  G. 

'A  short  account  of  New  Sweden  (in  Swedish).  Stockholm,  1702.  Cf.  a  synopsis  iu 
Tr.  Am.  Philosophical  Soc,  Phila.,  181G;  and  a  translation  by  Du  Ponceau,  Phila.,  1834. 

^Xouvclle  decouveric  d'un  trcs  yrand  pays,  sitae  dans  V Ami'rique,  entrc  le  Noureaux 
Mcxique  ct  la  Mer  Glaciale  etc.      Utrecht,  1697,  p.  300,  aud  elsewhere. 

-'History  of  Pennsylvania  in  America,,  etc.,  by  Robert  Proud.  Philadelphia,  1797> 
Vol.  I,  p.  153;  History  of  New  Jersey,  by  John  O.  Raum,  p.  108,  Stacy's  letter  was 
■written  from  "  Falls  of  the  Delaware,"  April  26,  1680,  to  his  brother  Revcll  and  others 
iu  England. 

'""History  of  the  Peach  in  America,"  Loreu  Blodgett.  The  Gardeners'  Monthly, 
Philadelphia,  1882,  p.  347;  see  also  Frond's  History  of  Pennsylvania  in  America,  Vol. 
I,  p.  249. 


EARLY    HISTORY    OF    PEACH    IN    UNITED    STATES.  lo 

Campauiiis  records  fiiuUng  peaches  in  three  places  along  the  Dela- 
ware.    Hennepin  snys : 

The  psaches  there  [iu  Louisiana]  are  like  those  of  Europe  and  bear  very  good  fruit 
in  such  abundance  that  the  savages  are  often  obliged  to  prop  up  the  trees  with  forked 
sticks. 

DnPratz  thinks  it  probabl;>  that  peaches  were  introducetl  into  Lou- 
isiana by  the  Indians  prior  to  French  occupation ;  the  aborigines 
having  obtained  them  from  the  Euglisli  colonj^  in  Carolina.  This  is 
the  most  probable  origin  of  those  found  by  Hennepin,  De  Soto's  visit 
to  tlie  Mississippi  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  before  having  been  under 
conditions  not  at  all  favorable  either  to  the  transportation  or  the  plant- 
ing of  peach  pits. 

Stacy  writes  from  New  Jersey  : 

I  have  traveled  through  most  of  the  places  that  are  settled,  and  some  that  are  not ; 
and  in  everyplace  I  find  the  country  very  apt  to  auswer  the  expectation  of  the  dili- 
gent. I  have  seen  orchards  laden  with  fruit  to  admiration  ;  their  very  limbs  torn  to 
pieces  by  the  weight,  and  most  delicious  to  the  taste  and  los'ely  to  behold.  I  have 
seen  an  apple  tree  from  a  pippin  kernel  yield  a  barrel  of  curious  cider,  and  peaches 
in  such  plenty  that  some  people  took  their  carts  a  peach  gathering  ;  I  could  not 
but  smile  at  the  conceit  of  it ;  they  arc  very  delicate  fruit,  and  hang  almost  like  our 
onions  that  are  tied  ou  ropes. 

William  Penn  says: 

The  fruits  I  llnd  in  the  woods  are  white  and  black  mulberry,  chestnut,  walnut, 
plumbs,  strawberries,  cranberries,  hurtleberries,  and  grapes  of  divers  sorts.  *  *  * 
Here  are  also  peaches  and  very  good  and  in  great  quantities,  not  an  Indian  planta- 
tion without  them  ;  but  whether  naturally  here  at  first  I  know  not.  However,  one 
may  have  them  by  bushels  for  very  little  ;'  they  make  a  pleasant  drink  and  I  think 
not  inferior  to  any  peach  you  have  iu  England,  except  the  true  Newington.' 

According  to  Kobert  Beverly  ^  peaches  grew  abundantly  in  Virginia 
at  the  beginoing  of  the  eighteenth  century.    He  says  : 

Peaches,  nectarines,  and  apricots,  as  well  as  plumbs  and  cherries,  grow  there  upon 
standard  trees.  They  commonly  bear  in  throe  years  from  the  stone,  and  thrive  so  ex- 
ceedingly that  they  seem  to  have  no  need  of  grafting  or  inoculating,  if  anybody 
would  be  so  good  a  husband  ;  and  truly  I  never  heard  of  any  that  did  graft  either 
plumb,  nectarine,  peach,  or  apricot  in  that  country,  before  the  first  edition  of  this 
book  [London,  1705]. 

Peaches  and  nectarines  I  believe  to  be  spontaneous  somewhere  or  other  on  the  con- 
tinent, for  the  Indians  have,  and  ever  had,  greater  variety  and  finer  sorts  of  them  than 
the  English.  The  best  sort  of  these  cling  to  the  stone  and  will  not  come  off  clear, 
which  they  call  plum  nectarines  and  plum  peaches,  or  clingstones.  Some  of  these 
are  12  or  13  inches  in  the  girth. ^    These  sorts  of  fruits  are  raised  so  easily  there  that 

'  Wm.  Penn,  proprietor  and  governor  of  Pennsylvania,  first  landed  iu  America  in 
October,  1632.  The  long  descriptive  letter  from  which  this  paragraph  is  taken  was 
written  August  16,  1683,  from  Philadelphia  "To  the  Committee  of  the  Free  Society 
of  Traders  of  that  province,  residing  in  London." 

-  The  Eistorif  of  Vlrglma,  by  Robert  Beverly,  a  native  and  inhabitant  of  the  place. 
Reprinted  from  the  author's  second  revised  edition,  London,  17-3'2.  J.  W.  Randolph, 
Richmond,  Va..  1855,  p.  259. 

•'In  August,  1837,  I  received  two  Pnllen's  Seedlings  from  John  Buruite,  of  Feltou, 
Del.,  which  measured  respectively  9J  and  9|  inches:  and  in  August,  1833,  I  saw  a 
Reeves's  Favorite,  10  inches  in  circumference. 


14  SPECIAL    REPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

some  i;ood  liasbaiids  plaufc  great  orclaards  of  them,  purposely  for  their  hogs ;  and 
others  make  a  driuk  of  them,  which  they  can  mobby,  and  drink  it  as  cider,  or  distil 
it  off  for  branfly.     This  makes  the  best  spirit  next  to  j^rapes. 

Ill  1733  peaches  grew  plentifully  in  Georgia,  as  indicated  by  the  fol- 
lowing quotation:' 

Mulberries,  both  black  and  white,  are  natives  of  this  soil,  and  are  found  in  the 
woods,  as  are  many  other  sorts  of  fruit  trees  of  excellent  kinds,  and  the  growth  of 
them  is  surprisingly'  swift  ;  for  .a  peach,  apricot,  or  nectarine  tree  will,  from  the  stone, 
grow  to  be  a  bearing  tree  iu  four  or  five  years'  time  [p.  HO]. 

They  have  oranges,  lemons,  apples,  and  pears,  besides  the  peach  and  apricot  men- 
tioned before.  Some  of  these  are  so  delicious  that  whoever  tastes  them  will  despise 
the  insipid,  watery  taste  of  those  we  have  in  England  ;  and  yet  such  is  the  plenty  of 
them  that  they  are  given  to  the  hogs  in  great  quantities  (p.  51). 

On  September  18,  1740,  Mr.  Thomas  Jones  writes  from  Savannah  to 
Mr.  John  Lyde  as  follows  :^ 

As  to  our  fruit,  the  most  common  are  peaches  and  uectariues  (I  believe  that  I  had 
a  hundred  bushels  of  the  former  this  year  in  my  little  garden  in  town) ;  we  have  also 
apples  of  divers  sorts,  cliincopin  nuts,  walnut,  chestnut,  hickory,  and  ground  nuts. 

In  1741  Sir  John  Oldmixon  writes  of  Virginia :  ' 

Here  is  such  plenty  of  peaches  that  they  give  them  to  their  hogs  ;  f^ome  of  them, 
called  malachotoons,  are  as  big  as  a  lemon  and  resemble  it  a  little. 

Of  Carolina  he  writes,  quoting  Mr.  Archdale  : 

Everything  generally  grows  there  that  will  grow  iu  any  part  of  Europe,  there 
being  already  many  sorts  of  fruits,  as  apples,  pears,  apricots,  nectarines,  etc.  They 
that  once  taste  of  them  will  despise  the  watery,  washy  taste  of  those  in  England. 
There's  such  plenty  of  them  that  they  are  given  to  the  hogs.  In  four  or  five  years 
they  come  from  a  stone  to  be  bearing  trees. 

In  1748  the  naturalist,  Peter  Kalm,  traveled  extensively  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, Isew  Jersey,  and  other  parts  of  eastern  North  America.  Kalm 
was  a  shrewd  and  observant  man.  From  his  interesting  records,  which 
bear  the  stamp  of  truth,  I  quote  as  follows:'' 

[September  17, 1748,  at  Mr.  Bartram's  country  seat,  4  miles  south  of  Philadelphia]: 
Every  countryman,  even  a  common  peasant,  has  an  orchard  near  his  house,  in  which 
all  sorts  of  fruits,  such  as  peaches,  apples,  pears,  cherries,  and  others  are  iu  plenty. 
The  peaches  are  now  almost  riiie.  They  are  rare  in  Europe,  particularly  in  Sweden, 
for  in  that  country  hardly  any  people  besides  the  rich  taste  them.  But  here  every 
countryman  had  an  orchard  full  of  peach  trees,  which  were  covered  with  such  quan- 
tities of  fruit  that  wo  could  scarcely  walk  in  the  orchards  without  treading  on  those 
which  were  fallen  off,  many  of  which  were  always  left  on  the  ground,  and  only  part 
of  them  was  sold  in  town  and  the  rest  was  consumed  by  the  family  and  strangers,  for 
every  one  that  passed  by  was  at  liberty  to  go  into  the  orchard  and  to  gather  as  many 


^A  Xew  and  Accurate  Account  of  the  Provinces  of  South .  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
Loudon,  1733.  Said  to  be  by  General  Oglethorpe.  Reprinted  in  CoJIections  of  the 
Georgia  Historical  Society.     Vol.  1,  Savannah,  1840. 

-An  impartial  inquiry  into  the  state  and  utiUtji  of  the  province  of  Georgia.  London: 
1741.  Presumed  to  be  by  Benjamin  Martin,  esq.  Reprinted  in  Collections  of  the 
Georgia  Historical  Society,  Vol.  I,  1840,  p.  199. 

'  The  British  Empire  in  America,  by  John  Oldmixon.  Second  edition,  London  :  1741. 
Vol.  I,  pp.  440  and  515. 

'^Travels  into  North  America,  by  Peter  Kalm;  translated  into  English  by  John  R. 
Forster,  F.  A.  S.     AVarringtou:  1770.     Vol.  I. 


EARLY    HISTORY    OF    PEACH    IN    UNITED    STATES.  15 

of  them  as  tbey  w;inted.     Nay,  this  line  fruit  was  frequently  jjiven  to  the  swine  (pp. 
71-7i2). 

[Here  follows  a  paragraph  telling  how  the  fruit  is  dried  for  winter 
use.] 

The  peach  trees  have,  as  I  am  told,  heen  first  planted  here  by  the  I^uropeaus.  But 
at  present  they  succeed  very  well,  and  require  even  less  care  tlian  our  [Swedish] 
apple  and  pear  trees. 

The  orchards  have  sjldoni  other  fruit  than  apples  and  peaches  (p.  73). 

[September  21.  Nine  miles  northwest  of  Philadelphia,  at  the  country-seat  of  Mr. 
Peter  Cock]:  As  we  went  on  in  the  wood  we  continually  saw  at  moderate  distances 
little  fields,  which  had  been  cleared  of  the  wood.  Each  of  these  was  afai-m.  *  *  * 
Every  countryman,  even  though  he  was  the  poorest  peasant,  had  an  orchard,  with 
apples,  peaches,  etc.  (p.  88). 

[September  22,  same  locality]  :  They  make  brandy  from  peaches  here  after  the  fol- 
lowing method.  *  »  *  This  brandy  is  not  good  for  people  who  have  a  more  refined 
taste,  but  it  is  only  for  the  common  kind  of  people,  such  as  workmcu  and  the  like 
(p.  94). 

[September  26]:  Mr.  BartraiH  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  apple  tree  was  brought 
into  America  by  the  Europeans,  and  that  it  never  was  there  before  their  arrival.  But 
lie  looked  upon  peaches  as  an  original  American  Iruit,  and  as  growing  wild  in  thegreat- 
est  part  of  America.  Others  again  were  of  the  opinion  that  they  were  first  brought 
over  by  the  Europeans.  But  all  the  French  in  Canada  agreed  that  on  the  banks  of 
the  Mississippi  and  in  the  country  thereabouts  peaches  were  found  growing  wild  in 
great  quantity  (p.  127). 

October  the  27th.  In  the  morning  I  set  out  [from  Phihidelphia]  on  a  little  journey 
to  New  York,  in  company  with  Mr.  Peter  Cock,  with  a  view  to  see  the  country,  and 
to  inquire  into  the  safest  road  which  I  could  take  in  going  into  Canada.^      #     »     • 

That  part  where  we  traveled  at  present  [i.  c,  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Delaware, 
between  Philadelphia  and  Trenton]  was  pretty  well  inhabited  on  both  sides  of  the 
road  by  Englishmen,  Germans,  and  other  Europeans.  *  »  *  Near  almost  every 
farm  was  a  great  orchard,  with  peach  and  apple  trees,  some  of  which  were  yet  loaded 
withfinit  (p.  21G). 

Kaliu  crossed  the  Delaware  at  Trenton  in  the  evening,  and  continued 
his  journey  on  October  28,  from  Trenton  via  Princeton,  where  they 
stopped  over  night.  He  found  the  country  thickly  settled  and  full  of 
orchards : 

During  the  greater  part  of  the  day  we  had  very  extensive  corn  fields  on  both  «ides 
of  the  road.  *  ^  >'  Near  almost  every  farm  was  a  spacious  orchard  full  of  peach 
and  apple  trees,  and  in  some  of  them  the  fruit  had  fallen  from  the  trees  in  such  quan- 
tities as  to  cover  nearly  the  whole  surface.  Part  of  it  they  left  to  rot,  because  they 
could  not  take  it  all  in  and  consume  it.  Wherever  we  passed  by  we  were  always 
welcoruc  to  go  into  the  fine  orchards  and  gather  our  hats  and  pockets  full  of  the 
choicest  fruit,  without  the  possessors  so  much  as  looking  after  it  (pp.  222-223). 

On  October  29  the  journey  was  continued  via  New  Brunswick: 

Almost  near  every  favm-house  were  great  orchards  (p.  227). 

In  1758  Du  Pratz  speaks  of  peaches  in  Louisiana  as  follows:^ 
The  peaches  are  of  the  kind  we  call  alberges ;  and  contain  so  much  water  that  they 

'  Later,  Avhen  Kalm  was  in  Canada,  he  notes  the  reported  occurrence  of  peaches  in 
the  southern  parts  of  Canada  and  to  the  southwest  in  the  Mississippi  region,  but 
makes  no  mention  of  having  himself  seen  them  in  Canada. 

-  Tlic  History  of  Louisiana,  or  of  the  western  parts  of  Virginia  and  Carolina,  trans- 
lated from  the  French  (lately  published),  by  M.  Le  Page  Du  Pratz.  London,  1763, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  17. 


16  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELT.OWS. 

make  a  kiud  of  witie  of  it.  »  *  *  Onv  colonists  i)lant  tlie  peach  stones  about  tbe 
end  of  February,  and  suffer  the  trees  to  grow  exposed  to  all  weathers.  In  the  third 
year  they  will  gather  from  one  tree  at  least  two  bundled  peaches,  and  double  that 
auionut  for  six  or  seven  years  more,  when  the  tree  dies  irrevocably.  As  new  trees  are 
so  easily  produced,  the  loss  of  the  old  ones  is  not  in  the  least  regretted. 

la  1756  Israel  Acreliiis  returned  to  Sweden  from  tbe  Delaware  re- 
gion, where  he  had  been  the  resident  elergy  man  for  some  years.  From 
bis  book,  which  is  more  trnstwortliy  tluni  that  of  Campanins,  I  quote 

as  follows : ' 

Peach  trees  stand  within  an  iuclosure  by  themselves ;  grow  even  iu  the  stouii-st 
places  without  culture.  The  fruit  is  the  most  delicious  that  the  month  can  taste,  and 
often  allowable  in  fevers.  One  kind,  called  clingstones,  are  considered  the  best ;  in 
these  the  stoues  arc  not  loose  from  the  fruit  as  in  the  others.  Many  have  poach  or- 
chards chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  feeding  their  swine,  which  are  not  allowed  to  run  at 
large.  They  first  bloom,  in  March,  the  tlowers  coming  out  before  the  leaves,  and  are 
often  injured  by  the  frosts  ;  they  are  ripe  toward  the  close  of  August.  This  fruit  is  re- 
garded as  indigenous,  like  maize  and  tobacco  ;  for  as  far  as  any  Indians  huve  been 
seen  in  the  interior  of  the  country  these  plauts  are  found  to  extend. 

In  one  of  his  chapters  on  the  '^General  state  of  Pennsylvania  between 
the  years  17G0  and  1770,"  Proud  says:" 

In  some  places  peaches  are  so  common  and  plentiful  that  the  country  people  feed 
their  hogs  with  them. 

In  1703  Thomas  Cooper  spent  the  autumn  and  winter  in  tbe  United 
States,  and  on  his  return  to  England  published  a  book  in  which  are  the 
following  statements,  apparently  in  part,  at  least,  gathered  at  first  hand  :•' 

Every  farm  home  iu  the  Middle  aud  Southern  States  has  its  peach  orchard  and  its 
apple  orchard,  and,  with  all  their  slovenliness,  abundance  and  content  are  evident  in 
every  habitation  (p.  51). 

At  Norfolk,  Va.,  peaches  sold  for  Id.  aud  2d.  per  dozen  (p.  96).  At  '..  ineh(  ster, 
Va.,  the  price  of  peaches  was  from  2s.  to  4s.  per  bushel,  Virginia  currency  (p.  100). 

In  Virginia  aud  Maryland  peaches  and  apples  afford  peach  and  apple  brandy  ; 
the  latter  is  an  indifferent  spirit ;  the  former,  when  well  made,  carefully  rectified,  aud 
kept  iu  a  cask  for  some  years,  is  as  hue  liquor  as  I  have  ever  tasted  (p.  121). 

At  Paxton,  near  Harrisburg,  Mr.  M'Allister  had  several  peach  trees 
but  only  recently  planted.  This  man  also  had  a  few  apricot  and  nec- 
tarine trees. 

He  gives  Gd.  apiece  for  apple  and  peach  trees,  about  three  or  four  years  old,  that  is 
fit  to  plant  out  (p.  129).  Peach  trees  [same  place]  grow  about  the  thickness  of  one's 
thumb  and  4  or  5  feet  high  in  one  year  from  the  stone,  aud  bear  fruit  iu  four  years 
from  the  stone  (p.  130). 

In  1705  Winterbotham  writes  :  ^ 

The  apples  of  this  State  [Maryland]  are  large  but  mealy  ;  the  peaches  plenty  and 
good.     From  these  the  inhabitauts  distill  cider  and  peach  brandy  (p.  36). ^ 

1  The  Hislorji  of  New  Sweden,  or  the  Settlevients  on  the  River  Delaware,  by  Israel  Ac- 
relius.  Stockholm.  1759.  Translated  from  the  Swedish  by  William  M.  Reynolds,  D. 
D.,  Philadelphia,  1876,  being  Vol.  XI  of  the  Memoirs  of  the  Historical  Socictt/  of  Peim- 
sijlvania.     Pp.  151,152. 

".L.  c,  Vol.  II,  p.  266. 

^Some  Ivformaiion  Eespeclind  America,  collected  by  Thomas  Cooper,  late  of  Man- 
chester.    London,  1794. 

*  An  Historical,  GcograjMcal,  Commercial,  and  rhilosopMcal  View  of  the  American 
United  States,  etc.,  by  W.  Winterbotham.     London,  1795.    Vol.  III. 


FIRST    APPEARANCE    OF    YELLOWS.  17 

In  soiuo  couuties  [of  Virginia]  tLey  have  plenty  of  cider,  and  exquisite  brandy  dis- 
tilled from  peaches,  which  grow  in  great  abundance  hi)ou  the  numerous  rivers  of  the 
Chesapeake  (p.  84). 

Little  atteutioii  appears  to  have  been  given  to  the  systematic  cultiva- 
tion of  the  peach  even  during  the  eighteenth  century.  The  trees  were 
transplanted,  or  grown  in  place  from  pits,  and  then  left  to  themselves. 
Even  as  late  as  1804  such  treatment  was  not  infrequent.'  Nevertheless 
the  peach  flourished. 

FIRST  APPEARANCE   OF   YELLOWS. 

However,  in  the  vicinity  of  Philadelphia  and  along  the  Delaware, 
where  from  past  experience  the  climate  was  known  to  be  very  favorable, 
more  attention  was  given  to  peach  orchards  after  the  Eevolution;  and 
here,  prior  to  1800,  there  began  to  be  great  complaint  of  the  increasing 
degeneracy  of  the  peach.  In  marked  contrast  with  its  former  habit  it 
was  now  declared  to  be  very  short-lived  and  disappointing.  So  general 
was  this  decay  that  in  May,  1796,  the  American  Philosophical  Society 
offered  the  following  premium,  one  of  five: 

For  the  best  method,  veriiied  by  experiment,  of  preventing  the  premature  decay  of 
peach  trees,  ii  premium  of.|(JO.  Papers  on  this  subject  will  be  received  till  the  1st 
day  of  January,  1798.- 

This  premium  was  finally  divided  between  John  Ellis,  of  New  Jersey, 
and  Thomas  Coulter,  formerly  of  Delaware  but  then  of  Bedford  County, 
Pa.  Both  men  associated  the  trouble  directly  or  indirectly  with  in- 
sects,^ and  Mr.  Ellis  gives  a  rough  but  fairly  correct  account  of  the  dep- 
redations of  the  borer,  J^(jcria  ejcitiosa.  Say.  There  is  no  mention  in 
either  paper  of  any  symptoms  at  all  like  yellows. 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  peach  borer  was  responsible  for  the  en- 
tire trouble,  though  unquestionably  the  habits  of  this  insect  have  not 
changed  during  the  last  hundred  years. 

Ten  years  later,  February  11,  1806,  Judge  Richard  Peters  read  be- 
fore the  Philadelphia  Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture''  a  paper  "on 
peach  trees,"  in  which  he  says : 

About  fifty  years  ago  [between  1750  and  1760],  on  the  farm  on  Avhich  I  now  reside 
[Belmont,  now  inchuled  in  Fairraouut  Park  in  the  west  part  of  Philadelphia],  my 
father  had  a  lai'ge  iieach  orchard,  which  yielded  abundantly.  Until  a  general  catas- 
trophe befell  it  jilentiful  crops  had  been  for  many  years  produced  with  very  little 
attention.  The  trees  began  nearly  at  once  to  sicken,  and  finally  perished.  Whether 
by  the  wasp  l^geria']  then  undiscovered,  or  by  some  change  in  our  climate,  I  know 


^An  Epitome  of  Mr.  Forsi/th^s  Treatise  on  the  Culture  and  Manafjemcnt  of  Fruit  Trees. 
By  an  American  Farmer.     Phila.,  1804. 

'^Tr.  Am.  Pkilo^oplncal  Soc,  Phila.,  1799,  Vol.  IV,  p.  5. 

^Tr.  Am.  Fhilo.  Soc,  Phila.,  Vol.  V,  Appendix,  pp.  325-328, 

'^Memoirs  of  the  Fhiladelpkia  Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture,  Phila.,  Pa.,    1815, 
pp.  15-24. 

11245— No.  9 2 


18  SPECIAL    REPORT    0\    PEACU    YELLOWS. 

not.'  For  forty  years  past  I  Lave  observed  tlie  peach  trees  iii  my  ueighborliood  to 
be  short-lived.  Farther  south,  in  the  western  country,  and,  it  seems,  in  some  i)arts 
of  New  Jersey  [apparently  not  in  all]  they  are  durable  and  productive  as  they  had 
been  formerly  here.  »  *  ^  The  worm  or  grub,  produced  by  the  wasp  depositinjr 
its  progeny  in  the  soft  bark  near  the  surface  of  the  ground,  is  the  most  common  de- 
stroyer. *■  »  »  When  trees  become  sickly  I  grub  theiu  up.  I  find  that  sickly 
trees  often  infect  those  in  vigor  near  them  by  some  morbid  effluvia.  Although  I 
have  had  trees  twenty  years  old,  and  knew  some  of  double  that  age  (owing  probably 
to  the  induration  of  the  bark  rendering  it  impervious  to  the  wasp,  and  the  strength 
acquired  when  they  had  survived  early  misfortunes),  yet  in  general  they  do  not  live 
in  tolerable  health  after  bearing  four  or  five  crops.  *  *  *  Fifteen  or  sixteen  years 
ago  [1790-'D1]  I  lost  one  hundred  and  tifty  peach  trees  in  full  bearing  in  the  coiirse 
of  two  summers  by  a  disease  engendered  in  the  first  season.  I  attribute  its  origin  to 
some  morbid  infection  in  the  air.  **  *  *  The  disorder  being  generally  prevalent 
would,  among  animals,  have  been  called  an  epidemic.  From  perfect  verdure  the 
leaves  turned  yellow  in  a  few  [?]  days,  and  the  bodies  blackened  in  spots.  Those 
distant  from  the  point  of  infection  gradually  caught  the  disease.  I  procured  young 
trees  from  a  distance  in  high  health  and  planted  them  among  the  least  diseased.  In 
a  few  [?]  weeks  they  became  sickly,  and  never  recovered.  *  *  *  After  my  gen- 
eral defeat  and  most  complete  overthrow,  in  which  the  worm  had  no  agency,  I  re- 
cruited my  peaches  from  distant  nurseries,  not  venturing  to  take  any  out  of  those  in 
my  vicinity.  I  have  since  experienced  a  few  instances  of  tliis  malady,  and  have 
promptly,  on  the  first  sympton)s  appearing,  removed  the  subjects  of  it,  deeming  their 
cases  desperate  in  themselves  and  tending  to  the  otherwise  inevitable  destruction  of 
others. 

Judge  Peters  said  lie  then  had  two  hundred  trees  of  all  ages — thirty- 
two  varieties ;  Mr.  Coxe,  of  Rurlingtou,  N.  J.,  had  "  double  that  number," 
and  Edward  Heston,  a  neighbor  of  Peters,  had  "seven  or  eight  hun- 
dred trees  *  *  *  now  in  vigor,  and  very  productive."  On  page  23 
Judge  Peters  adds,  in  a  note  of  later  date : 

Mr.  Heston  begins  to  suffer  by  the  disease  I  call  the  yellows,  though  he  has  fewer 
worms  than  common  in  other  modes  [of  cultivation]. 

Nearly  two  years  later,  September,  1807,^  Judge  Peters  records  in  a 
brief  note,  that — 

As  I  predicted,  the  yellows  are  sceir  making  destructive  ravages  in  Mr.  Heston's 
peach  plantation.  I  have  lost  a  great  proportion  of  my  trees  [the  200]  by  the  same 
malady  this  year,  some  of  them  young  and  vigorous.  We  have  had  two  successive 
rainy  seasons.  I  do  not  recollect  ever  to  have  seen  more  general  destruction  among 
peach  trees  throughout  the  whole  of  the  country.  It  seems  that  excessive  moisture 
is  one  of  the  primary  causes  of  this  irresistible  disease. 

Again  we  read  :  ^ 

I  am  pursuing  my  old  plan  of  re-instating  my  peach  trees  lost  last  seasou  [180G  or 
1807]  by  my  unconquerable  foe,  the  disease  I  call  the  yellows.  I  obtain  them  from 
different  nurseries  free  from  this  i)estiferous  affection.     The  worm  or  wasp  [Jujcriul 


'In  The  Niw  England  Farmer,  or  Geordiral  Dictionary,  Worcester,  Mass.,  1790, 
Samuel  Dean  .ilso  complains  of  a  degeneracy  of  peach  trees  dating  back  to  about  17(i0. 
His  statements  are  as  follows:  "We  have  room  for  making  great  improvements,  it 
seems,  in  the  culture  of  this  fruit.  Wliat  we  call  the  rare-ripe  is  almost  the  only  sort 
I  have  seen  that  is  worth  cultivating.  And  this  kind  within  thirty  years  seems  to 
have  greatly  degenerated.  I  apprehend  it  is  time  that  these  were  renewed  by  bring- 
ing the  trees  or  stones  from  some  other  country."     (P.  208. ) 

-  Memoirs  of  the  Philadelphia  Society  for  Promotiny  Ayricultnrc,  Phila.,  Pa.,  1815,  p.  24. 

^/&i(?.,  p.  120. 
k 


FIRST    APPEAKANCi:    OF    YFLLOWS.  19 

I  hiivo  ill  complete  subjection.  I  should  be  perfectly  disinterested  iu  proposiug  tluit 
the  society  otter  a  premium  for  preveutiug  the  disease  so  fatal ;  for  I  shall  never  gaia 
the  reward. 

Agaiu  Jiulge  Peters  writes  : 

I  still  thiuk  [November  17,  1807]  '  that  the  disease  so  generally  fatal  (more  so  this 
year  than  any  other  iu  my  memory),  called  the  yellows,  is  atmospherical.  ^  *  * 
Compare  this  account  [of  thrifty  orchards  in  Delaware]  with  the  actual  state  of  the 
peach  iu  our  country,  and  Judge  whether  we  live  in  a  region  favorable  to  its  growth. 
Mr.  Hestou's  attempt  at  cultivating  this  tree  iu  the  Southern  manner  begins  already 
to  fail.  His  trees  are  evidently  infected,  and  many  ai'e  on  the  decline.  The  yellows 
are  universally  prevalent  this  season  throughout  the  whole  country  [i.  e.,  around 
Philadelphia]. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  tbat  with  all  bis  xA'riting  Jiulge  Peters  left  no 
clear  account  of  the  symptoms  of  the  disease.  There  is  notbiug  more 
definite  than  the  following  remark  : 

The  shoots  of  the  last  season  were  remarkably  injured  by  the  excessive  drought, 
and  the  extremities  of  many  limbs  are  entirely  dead  [February  11,  180C].  Tegu- 
ments of  straw  or  bass  [placed  around  the  truuk  to  keep  away  the  borers]  maile 
the  bark  tender  audit  threw  out  under  the  covering  sickly  shoots. 

This  incidental  mention  of  "  sicldy  sboots"  and  dead  extremities, 
coupled  with  tbe  other  statements  quoted,  render  it  liijely  enough  that 
the  appe;irauces  which  he  attributed  to  other  causes  were  really  due  to 
what  we  now  call  yellows.  So  far  as  I  know,  Judge  Peters  was  the 
first  to  apply  the  term  yellows  to  a  disease  of  tbe  peach. 

Dr.  James  Tilton,  of  Bellevne,  near  Wilmington,  Del.,  expresses  him- 
self more  explicitly  and  leaves  no  doubt  tbat  tbe  disease  which  he  saw 
was  identical  with  the  one  now  prevalent.  In  a  letter  to  Judge  Peters, 
November  6,  1807,^  he  says  : 

The  disease  and  early  death  of  our  peach  trees  is  a  fertile  source  of  observation, 
far  from  being  exhausted.  »  *  *  Even  that  sickly  appearance  of  the  tree  called 
the  yellows,  attended  by  numerous  weakly  shoots  on  the  limbs  generally,  is  attributed 
to  insects  by  a  late  writer  iu  our  newspapers. 

There  is  no  mention  of  premature  fruit,  associated  with  the  "  weakly 
shoots  "  as  a  part  of  tbe  disease,  but,  as  an  effect  of  climate,  mention 
is  made  tbat  ''  a  fine  early  peach,  which  ripened  iu  jS^ortbampton,  Va., 
so  early  as  June,  did  not  ripen  on  my  farm  before  tbe  last  of  August  or 
tbe  first  of  September."  In  the  same  communication  Dr.  Tilton  speaks 
of  "measures  proposed  in  our  newspapers  for  curing  the  yellows,"  as 
though  the  disease  bad  become  general. 

I  havenodoubt  tbat  Doctor  Tilton  saw  yellows  in  1S07,  and  am  strongly 
inclined  to  think  tbat  Judge  Peters  was  talking  about  the  same  disease. 
Clearly  Doctor  Tilton  thought  so.  This  would  put  back  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  peach  yellows  to  some  time  prior  to  1791. 

Eeturning  to  1800-07  we  may  inquire  to  what  extent  this  new  dis- 
ease was  prevalent.  Tbe  foregoing  citations  show  clearly  enough  tbe 
condition  of  orchards  around  Philadelphia. 

'  Memoirs  of  the  Philadelphia  Sociefi/  for  rromot'nuj  Agricidiure,  Phila.,  Pa.,  1315,  p. 
189. 
•"lUd.,  pp.  192-197. 


20  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Mr.  William  Coxe,  a  nnrserymau  and  fruit-grower  who  lived  at  Bur- 
liugtoii,  N.  J.,  20  miles  northeast  of  Philadelphia,  writes  to  Judge  Pe- 
ters on  April  5, 1807  : ' 

I  am  perfectly  ignoraut  of  the  disease  to  wlilcli  you  give  the  uanie  of  yellows. 
Nothiug  of  this  description  bas  ever  appeared  among  my  peach  trees.  For  four  or 
five  years  past  my  trees  have  borne  well  and  have  resisted  the  worms. 

Doctor  Tilton  writes  to  Judge  Peters :  ^ 

In  my  jaunt  through  Maryland  I  was  attentive  to  the  subject  of  your  letters.  I 
found  the  peach  trees  generally  were  long-lived,  healthy,  and  bore  well.  In  Edward 
Lh>yd's  garden  [at  Wye  House,  near  Tunis  Mills,  Talbot  County]  I  observed  some  of 
these  trees  15  or  18  inches  in  diameter  and  perfectly  healthy.  Colonel  Nichols,  near 
Easton  [  Talbot  County,  95  miles  southwest  of  Philadelp-hia],  abounds  in  the  best 
kind  of  peaches.3    He  is  an  old  residenter,  and  particularly  attentive  to  fruits. 

In  reference  to  Delaware,  Judge  Peters  himself  says:^ 

I  received  verbally  from  a  wealthy  farmer,  Mr.  Bellah,  who  is  the  proprietor  of  a 
considerable  landed  estate  in  Delaware  [near  Dover],  the  following  account,  wliicli 
he  says  is  generally  applicable  to  the  culture  of  peaches  in  the  southern  country: 

"In  Kent  County,  Del.,  they  cultivate  the  peacli  without  any  difliculty  or  risk. 
*  *  *  They  obtain  fruit  in  three  years  in  i>lenty  ;  and  the  trees  have  been  known 
to  endure  fifty  years.  No  worms  or  diseases  assail  them.  *  ^  *  There  are  orchards 
of  50  and  70  acres,  and  some  larger  in  Accomac'"'  and  other  parts  of  the  isthmus  l>e- 
tweeu  the  bays  of  Chesapeake  and  Delaware,  farther  south." 

Timothy  Matlack,  esq.,  writing  "  On  Peach  Trees  "  in  1808,*^  from  Lan- 
caster, G.J  miles  west  of  Philadelphia,  speaks  of  the  borer,  but  does  not 
mention  yellows. 

It  would  appear,  therefore,  from  these  statements  and  from  consider- 
able additional  negative  evidence,  that  at  this  date,  18O0-'07,  the  dis- 
ease was  restricted  to  a  small  area  around  Philadeli)hia,  including 
probably  a  portion  of  New  Jersey  and  upper  Delaware. 

'  Memoirs  of  the  VMladeJpliia  Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture,  Phila.,  Pa.,  1815,  p. 
I'^O. 

'Jhiil.,]y.ldG. 

'"This  tree  was  introduced  at  Easton,  Talbot  County,  Md.,  by  George  Robbins,  in 
about  1735.  The  stones  were  received  by  [him  from]  Peter  Collinson,  of  England,  to- 
gether with  the  seeds  of  that  year." — The  Soiitltern  Apple  conl  Peach  CitltHrisf,  by  James 
Fitz  and  .1.  W.  Fitz,  Richmond,  Va.,  1872,  p.  225. 

■^Memoirs  of  the  Philadelphia  Society  for  Promoliinj  Jjiriciilliirc,  Phila.,  Pa.,  1815,  pp 
18t»,  190. 

■'•In  1814  Mr.  Bayley,  of  Accomac  County,  had  03,000  peach  trees,  the  product  of 
which  he  converted  into  brandy.  He  had  then  been  in  the  business  more  than  ten 
years.  "The  age  of  a  peach  orchard  Mr.  Bayley  estimates  at  tweuty  years.  He  has 
seen  them  mucb  older,  but  thinks  more  profit  is  to  be  had  by  replanting  at  the  end 
of  tweuty  years.  A  tree  is  nearly  in  perfection  the  sixth  year,  when  it  will  yield 
annually  at  the  rate  of  15  gallons  of  fourth-proof  brandy  for  every  hundred  trees.  The 
price  of  this  liquor  before  the  war  [of  1812  ]  was  $1 .50,  and  now  12  per  gallon."  Peach 
borers  were  common,  but  there  is  no  mention  of  any  disease. — Quoted  from  Mr.  Ged- 
des  in  The  Farmer^s  Jsmtant,  by  John  Nicholson,  es(i.,  of  Herkimer,  N.  Y.,  published 
by  Benjamin  Warner,  Philadelphia  and  Richmond,  1820. 

>^  Memoirs  of  the  Philadelphia  Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture,  Phila.,  Pa.,  1815,  pp. 
278-284. 


FIRST    APPEARANCE    OF    YELLOWS.  21 

From  this  elate  the  disease  gradually  extended  into  Kew  Jersey,  Dela- 
ware, Maryland,  New  York,  and  other  States. 

Mr.  Coxe,  of  New  Jersey,  who  knew  nothing  about  yellows  in  1807, 
knew  it  apparently  only  too  well  in  1817,'  for  lie  says  of  the  peach  : 

It  is,  wbeu  in  perfection,  the  tinest  fruit  of  our  country  for  beauty  and  flavor;  it  is 
deeply  to  be  regretted  tbat  its  duration  is  so  sbort,  and  tbat  it  is  subject  to  a  malady 
wbicb  no  remedy  can  cure  nor  cultivation  arrest.  Of  tlie  numberless  modes  of  mit- 
igating or  preveutiug  the  diseases  of  tbe  peacb  tree,  with  which  our  public  prints  are 
daily  teeming,  none  have  yet  been  found  effectual.  The  ravages  of  the  worm,  which 
destroys  the  roots  and  trunk  of  this  tree,  may  be  sometimes  prevented  and  with  care 
may  beat  all  times  rendered  less  destructive,  but  the  malady  which  destroys  much 
the  largest  portion  of  tbe  trees  has  hitherto  baffled  every  effort  to  sabdne  it ;  neither 
its  source  nor  the  precise  character  of  the  disease  api^ear  to  be  perfectly  understood. 
In  one  of  the  consequencesof  this  disease  every  cultivator  of  the  tree  will  agree,  that 
it  can  not  be  cultivated  with  success  on  the  site  of  a  former  plantation  until  some 
years  and  an  intermediate  course  of  cultivation  have  intervened  ;  in  a  nursery  estab- 
lished on  ground  previously  occupied  by  peach  trees  the  stones  may  possibly  sprout, 
but  in  a  few  [?]  weeks  they  will  assume  a  languishing  appearance,  tiie  leaves  will 
turn  yellow,  they  will  dwindle,  and  the  greater  part  will  perish  the  first  season. 

If  trees  are  brought  from  a  sound  nursery  and  planted  on  the  site  of  an  old  orchard, 
or  in  a  garden  previously  occupied  by  them,  or  among  old  trees,  the  young  planta- 
tion will  share  the  same  fate  with  the  nursery  plants,  it  will  seldom  survive  the  first 
season,  and  it  will  never  be  vigorous  or  thrifty. 

The  fine  peaches  which  are  raised  for  tlie  Philadelphia  market  are  cultivated  in  the 
following  manner.  [Here  follows  an  account  of  the  method  of  cultivation,  not  dif- 
ferent from  that  now  in  use  in  Maryland  and  Delaware.]  With  this  management 
[which  included  search  for  borers  in  the  spring,  suumier,  and  autumn],  a  peach  or- 
chard near  a  market,  or  on  navigable  waters,  will  be  a  ]irofitable  a]iplication  of  land, 
but  no  precautions  will  insure  its  duration  beyond  two  or  three,  or  at  the  utmost  four 
[bearing?]  years.  If  it  succeeds  even  for  this  short  time,  with  a  judicious  selection 
of  kinds,  the  product  will  amply  remunerate  the  trouble  and  expense,  beyond  any 
other  mode  of  employing  the  laud  in  this  country. 

The  proper  soil  for  a  peach  orchard  is  a  rich  sandy  loam  ;  I  have  no  recollection  of 
a  very  productive  one  on  very  stiff  or  cold  land. 

As  early  as  1810,  according  to  Darling,^  and  1814,  according  to 
Downing,^  the  disease  had  already  destroyed  "  a  considerable  part  of 
all  the  orchards"  in  New  Jersey,  and  had  made  its  appearance  on  the 
banks  of  tbe  Hiidson  and  in  Connecticut.^ 

Mr.  Coxe  in  his  treatise — all  the  pertinent  portions  of  which  I  have 
quoted — does  not  mention  premature  fruit.  The  earliest  reference  to 
this  as  one  of  the  symptoms  of  yellows  is  by  William  Prince,  of  Flush- 
ing, Long  Island,  in  1828.  Mr.  Prince  was  a  famous  nurseryman.  His 
extensive  knowledge  of  theoretical  and  practical  horticulture,  together 

1  A  Fiew  of  the  Cultivation  of  Fruit  Trees,  etc.,  by  Wm.  Coxe,  esq.,  of  Burlington, 
N.  J.,  pp.  215-217.      Phila.,  1817. 

2  The  Yellows  in  Peach  Trees,  by  Noyes  Darling,  New  Haven,  Conn.,  December  2, 
1844.     The  Cultivator,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1845,  pp.  60-62. 

^Fruits  and  Fruit  Trees  of  America,  by  A.  J.  Downing.  Revised  edition,  N.  Y., 
1865,  p.  600. 

*See  also  Nil  s's  TVeekhi  Register,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1816,  p.  262,  and  Farmers'  Register, 
Petersburgh,  Va.,  1841,  pp.  357-8. 


22  SPECIAL   REPORT    ON   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

with  bis  good  general  knowledge  of  botany,  not  oidy  made  liim  familiar 
witb  the  disease,  but  fitted  bim  to  write  upon  it  witb  some  degree  of 
exactness,  altbougb  be  does  not  always  distinguish  clearly  between 
tilings  proved  and  things  probable.  He  describes  the  disease  which 
we  now  call  "yellows,"  and  leaves  no  doubt  whatever  that  be  has  in 
mind  the  same  disease  mentioned  by  earlier  and  less  explicit  writers, 
such  as  Coxe  and  Peters.  For  these  reasons,  and  because  the  book  is 
seldom  found,  even  in  public  libraries,  I  have  here  transcribed  all  that 
relates. to  yellows: ' 

Tljeie  are  two  causes  that  have  operated  aj^ainst  tlie  success  of  this  tree  [tlie  peach], 
aud  which  seeiu  peculiar  to  it — the  oue  is  a  worm  wliich  attacks  the  tree  at  the  root, 
near  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and  often  totally  encircles  it;  ihe  other  is  a  disease 
visually  denominated  the  j'ellows.     [Here  follows  an  account  of  the  borer.  ] 

Yellows. — This  disease  which  couimenced  its  ravages  in  New  Jersey  and  Pennsyl- 
vania about  the  year  1797,  and  in  New  York  in  1801,  and  has  spread  through  seveial 
of  the  States,  is  by  far  more  destructive  to  peach  trees  than  the  worm,  aud  is  evidently 
contagions.  This  disease  is  spread  at  the  time  when  the  trees  are  in  bloom,  and  is 
disseminated  by  the  pollen  or  farina  blowing  from  the  Howers  of  the  diseased  trees, 
and  impregnating  the  flowers  of  those  which  are  healthy  and  which  is  (juickly  circu- 
lated by  the  sap  through  the  branches,  aud  fruit,  causing  the  fruit,  wherever  the  in- 
fection extends,  to  ripen  prematurely.  That  this  disease  is  entirely  distinct  from  the 
■worm  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the  circumstance  that  peach  trees  which  have  l)eeu 
inoculated  on  plum  or  almond  stocks,  though  less  affected  by  the  worm,  are  equally 
subject  to  the  yellows — aud  a  decisive  proof  of  its  being  contagious  is  that  a  healthy 
tree,  inoculated  from  a  branch  of  a  diseased  one,  instead  of  restoring  the  graft  to 
vigor  and  health,  immediately  becomes  itself  infected  with  the  disease.  As  all  efforts 
totally  to  subdue  it  must  require  a  long  course  of  time,  the  best  method  to  pursue 
towards  its  eventual  eradication  is  to  stop  its  progress  and  prevent  its  farther  exten- 
sion— to  accomplish  which  the  following  raeaus  are  recommended,  which  have  bec!; 
found  particularly  successful. 

As  soon  as  a  tree  is  discovered  to  possess  the  characteristics  of  the  disease,  which  is 
generally  known  by  the  leaves  putting  on  a  sickly,  yellow  appearance — but  of  which 
the  premature  ripening  of  the  fruit  is  decisive  proof— it  should  be  marked,  so  as  to  be 
removed  the  ensuing  autumn,  which  must  be  done  without  fail,  for  if  left  again  to 
bloom,  it  would  impart  the  disease  to  many  others  in  its  \iciuity ;  care  is  also  neces- 
sary in  its  removal  to  take  out  all  the  roots  of  the  diseased  tree,  especially  if  another 
is  to  be  planted  iu  the  same  place,  so  that  the  roots  of  the  tree  planted  may  not  come 
in  contact  with  any  of  those  of  the  one  which  was  diseased. 

If  your  neighbor  has  trees  infected  with  the  yellows  in  a  quarter  contiguous  to 
yours,  it  will  be  necessary  to  prevail  on  him  to  remove  them,  that  yours  may  not  be 
injured  by  them.  By  being  thus  particular  in  speedily  removing  such  trees  as  may 
be  infected,  the  disease  is  prevented  from  extending  itself  to  the  rest  of  the  orchard, 
and  the  residue  will  constantly  be  preserved  iu  perfect  health  at  the  trifling  loss  of 
a  few  trees  annually  from  a  large  orchard. 

"A  distant  subscriber,"  writing  to  The  New  York  Farmer  in  1831 
(p.  154),  also  mentions  premature  fruit.     He  says  : 

Notwithstanding  the  wide  destruction  that  the  yellows  has  made,  very  few  even  at 
this  day  appear  to  understand  the  unerring  symptoms  of  the  disease.  Let  me  say 
when  the  fruit  ripens  prematurely,  from  two  to  four  weeks  before  the  ordinary  time, 
and  the  pulp  is  marked  by  purple  discoloratious,  then  bewaa-e  ! 

'  A  Sho7-l  Treatise  on  Horilciilture,  by  William  Prince.  Printed  by  T.  aud  J.  Swords, 
127  Broadway,  N.  Y.,  1828,  pp.  14, 15. 


YELLOWS    IN    NEW    JERSEY.  23 

EXTENSION   OF    YELLOWS   SINCE    1830. 

The  disease  extcuded  somewhat  slowly,  and  its  general  movement 
appears  worthy  of  special  consideration,  particularly  as  this  may  throw 
some  light  upon  the  nature  of  the  disease.  It  may  be  noted,  however, 
that  it  continued  to  prevail  in  the  country  about  Philadelphia,  where  it 
was  originally  discovered,  as  shown  by  the  following-  citations: 

In  1838,  in  The  Farmer's  Cabinet,  it  is  styled  "  that  most  insidious 
and  fatal  disease  of  the  peach  tree,  the  yellows.'" 

In  1839,  the  same  journal' prints  the  following  from  the  pen  of  a 
correspondent : 

The  worm  (J^f/eria)  tind  the  yellows  are  two  great  contemporary  evils,  wliicL  prob- 
ably have  no  necessary  connection  with  each  other.  The  worm  does  not  inquire 
whether  the  devoted  tree  is  sick  or  in  health  ;  the  yellows  is  not  always  followed  by 
its  ravages.  Let  ns  therefore  persevere  in  our  investigation  of  these  maladies,  so  dis- 
tressing to  the  lover  of  good  fruit. 

In  1817,  the  following  appeared  in  The  Farmer  and  Mechanic:^ 

For  many  years  the  peach  tree  has  been  subject  to  a  disease  known  as  the  yellows. 
This  disease  seldom  makes  its  appearance  before  the  tree  has  arrived  at  maturity,  as 
its  great  vigor  and  rapid  growth  appear  1o  preclude  the  development  of  the  disease 
previous  to  the  tree  fruiting.  Much  time,  and  labor,  and  research  have  been  spent  in 
fruitless  endeavors  to  eradicate  the  disease  after  it  has  made  its  appearance  in  or- 
chards, and  the  only  result  arrived  at  is  the  necessity  for  replanting  new  trees  to  take 
the  place  of  the  old  ones  at  short  intervals  of  time.  Many  applications  to  trees  have 
been  recommended,  and  potash,  lime,  tobacco,  banking  up  trees  in  winter,  etc.,  have 
had  their  advocates. 

Although  individual  cures  may  have  been  effected,  or  decay  for  a  time  have  been 
arrested  by  the  remedies,  yet  such  instances  are  extremely  rare;  and  when  ai>plied  on 
a  large  scale  are  shown  to  be  without  value.  The  disease,  a  true  consumption,  still 
continues  and  will  continue,  unless  some  radical  method  is  adopted  to  eradicate  it. 
From  my  own  observation  and  experience,  I  am  led  to  the  belief  that  this  formidable 
disease  has  been  much  aggravated  and  spread  throughout  the  country  by  budding 
from  trees  containing  in  themselves  the  seeds  of  incipient  consumption,  not  yet  ex- 
ternally developed.  A  bud  may  be  taken  from  a  tree  apparently  sound,  but  afcer  a 
time  both  trees  will  be  affected  and  decay.  *  *  *  That  the  disease,  however  it 
may  have  originated,  has  not  its  origin  in  either  the  soil  or  climate  of  this  latitude 
is  pretty  evident.  Natural  trees  can  now  be  found  in  gieat  numbers  of  many  years' 
growth,  alongside  fences  and  other  neglected  situations,  perfectly  souud  and  likely 
to  remain  so. 

In  1878  yellows  was  still  quite  prevalent  near  Philadelphia.^ 

I.  Northward  and  northeastward  movement. — In  New  Jer- 
sey, peach  trees  continued  to  decay  and  peaches  became  scarce  from 
some  other  cause  than  the  attack  of  borers.^ 

1  The  Farmers'  Cabinet,  Philadelphia  1838,  p.  297. 

-  Page  80. 

3 Quoted  in  The  Farmers'  Cabinet,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  January,  1848,  pp.  182,183. 

■•  Butter  on  the  Peach,  Harrisburg,  1880,  pp.  10  and  70 

^Niles's  WeeMij  Register,  Baltimore,  Md.,  Jntie  15,  18IG. 


24  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Dr.  Sylvester'  reinembers  that  yellows  was  not  one-teutli  as  prevalent 
ill  i^ew  Jersey  in  183C  "as  now  [18G1]";  but  another  writer^  says: 

Some  of  the  line  peach  districts  of  Jersey  seem  of  late  years  [prior  to  183d]  to  have 
lost  their  power  of  producing  and  continuing  long-lived  the  tree  that  produces  this 
*  *  *  best  of  all  fruits.  We  should  like  to  hear  from  some  of  our  Jersey  subscribers 
if  they  can  give  us  the  reason  why  it  is  so,  and  if  any  clew  has  yet  been  found  into 
that  most  insidious  and  fatal  disease  of  the  peach  tree,  the  yellows. 

At  this  time  the  peach  was  extensively  planted  thronghout  New  Jer- 
sey ;^  and  prior  to  184G  there  must  have  been  another  great  irruption  of 
the  disease,  similar  to  that  which  took  place  between  180G  and  1814. 
In  a  very  interesting  communication,''  W.  E.  Prince,  of  Flushing,  Long 
Island,  declares  that  an  ''  almost  universal  extermination"  of  the  peach 
orchards  took  place  in  several  States,  and  that  "anj^  one  who  will  visit 
the  once  splendid  peach  orchards  in  various  parts  of  New  Jersey  will 
be  struck  [184G|  by  the  desolate  aspect  of  innumerable  plantations  of 
dead  trees,  with  only  here  and  there  a  sprig  of  verdure."  The  disease 
was  so  prevalent  that  we  begin  to  find  complaint  of  its  importation  into 
other  States.^ 

Col.  Edward  Wilkins,  who  was  for  many  years  an  extensive  and  suc- 
cessful Maryland  grower,  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  "  fifty 
thousand  acres  planted  in  peach  trees,  in  two  counties  only  of  that 
State  [New  Jersey],  had  been  destroyed  by  the  yellows  prior  to  1850." 
In  1858  he  visited  New  Jersey  for  the  purpose  of  becoming  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  disease,  and  in  the  paper  from  which  I  have  already 
quoted''  adds  that  "at  that  time  nearly  the  whole  of  the  peach  orchards 
of  New  Jersey  had  been  destroyed  by  a  disease  known  as  the  yellows." 

Prior  to  185 1  it  was  found  necessary,  we  are  told,  to  renew  the  peach 
orchards  of  New  Jersey  and  [upper]  Delaware  every  five  or  six  years." 
In  fact,  as  early  as  1839, 1  find  the  following  statement:'* 

Peaches  are  a  profitable  article  of  culture  in  the  country  through  which  we  have 
traveled.  *  »  *  The  profits  would  be  far  greater  if  means  could  be  adopted  to 
prevent  the  early  decay  of  the  trees.  The  average  continuance  of  a  peach  orchard  is 
from  six  to  eight  years;  and  four  crops  of  fruit  are  considered  a  liberal  return.  The 
disease  which  destroys  the  trees  is  termed  the  yellows.  Would  it  not  be  coinnienda- 
ble  in  the  New  Jersey  State  Agricultural  Society,  which  has  just  been  organized,  or 
even  in  the  legislature  of  that  State,  to  offer  a  bounty  for  the  discovery  of  a  cure  or 
preventive  of  this  disease?  *  »  *  The  extent  of  the  peach  plantations  will  seem 
extravagant  to  .some  of  our  northern  readers.     Many  growers  have  10,000  trees  ;  one, 

1  Discussion  before  the  Fruit  Growers'  Society  of  Western  New  York.  Genesee 
Farmer,  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  March,  1861,  p.  89. 

-  Farmers'  Begister,  Petersburgh,  Va.,  August,  1838,  p.  2G1.  Quoted  from  Farmers' 
Cahhief. 

:'T.  Hancock,  Burlington,  N.  J.,  January,  1841.  Hovey's  Magazine  of  IJordeiiHure, 
Boston,  1841,  p.  UO. 

■•  The  Horticulluriiit,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1846,  pp.  318,319. 

Uhicl,  p.  237. 

BJ/ie  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1875,  pp.  100-102. 

■'  The  Plough,  Loom,  and  Anvil,  New  York,  1854-'5r),  vol.  7,  p.  :359. 

«Notes  on  New  Jersey  Farming.  The  Caltiralor,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  September,  1839, 
p.  131. 

nmrnumif 


YELLO\YS    IN    NEVl^    JERSEY.  25 

30,000;  aud  at  one  place  in  Shrewsbury  [Mouiuoiith  Comity],  there  are  50,000  trees 
growino-  coutiguons  and  forming  as  it  were  one  magnificent  orchard. 

Four  years  previous  to  this  Niles's  Kegister  coutaiiied  the  following 
note: ' 

A  gentleman  in  Shrewsbury,  N.  J.,  will,  it  is  said,  realize  by  his  peach  crop  this 
year  from  $10,000  to  5112,000.  We  should  have  thought  that  every  peach  tree  had 
been  destroyed,  if  we  could  have  believ(^d  the  croakers,  some  time  ago. 

In  1801  WilHam  Keid,  of  New  Jersey,  writes:'^ 

Eight  or  ten  years  is  as  long  as  we  can  get  peach  trees  to  live  here.  They  invari- 
ably die  with  yellows. 

In  1878  an  ohl  Monmouth  County  peach -grower,  then  resident  in 
Michigan,  is  quoted '  as  saying  that  yellows  made  its  appearance  in 
Monmouth  County,  N.  J.,  about  1850,  "and  culminated  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  peach  orchards  about  185G."    Tiie  report  continues: 

Monmouth  County  and  vicinity  were  famous  in  their  day,  having  often  glutted  the 
Eastern  markets  with  peaches.  Driven  from  the  Atlantic  coast  counties  by  the  yel- 
lows, the  prominent  peach-growers  of  New  Jersey  located  in  Morris  and  other  counties 
in  the  north  of  the  State,  where  peaches  were  grown  successfully  nutil  about  1807, 
when  New  Jersey  peach-growers  were  again  driven  by  the  yellows  to  fresh  fields. 

This  man  is  said  to  have  been  an  eye  witness  to  both  outbreaks.  The 
disease  probably  appeared  in  Monmouth  County  earlier  than  1850. 

"Generally,  after  bearing  their  second  crop,"  saj's  Mr.  Barry,  in 
1801,-*  "the  JSTew  Jersey  orchards  all  die;  stilly  in  some  parts  even  of 
New  Jersey,  they  are  exempt  from  the  disease  [yellows]."  Mr.  Sharp 
warns  the  peach-growers  of  western  New  York  that  "  many  New  Jersey 
trees  are  being  sold  here,"  and  is  "  fearful  lest  we  become  like  New 
Jersey."^    Later,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  proved  to  be  the  case. 

The  Transactions  of  the  West  Jersey  Fruit  Growers'  Association, 
18G4,  edited,  apparently,  by  William  Parry,  a  noted  fruit-grower,  says 
that— 

Twenty-five  or  thirty  years  ago  peaches  were  grown  in  this  locality  [east  and 
northeast  of  Philadelphia,  near  the  Delaware  River]  with  but  little^care  or  cost;  but 
a  change  came  over  them,  aud  for  many  years  scarcely  any  could  be  produced.  Many 
trees  that  were  planted  out  died  without  producing  any  fruit ;  indeed,  it  was  thought 
to  be  an  entire  waste  of  labor  to  plant  peach  trees.  But  there  seems  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  they  are  again  becoming  a  surer  crop,  and  many  are  jilantiug  out  new 
orchards. 

The  first  crop  of  peaches  at  Vineland,  N.  J.,  was  in  18G8,  the  growth 
of  the  trees  being  all  that  could  be  desired.*^    Yellows  appeared  in  the 

1  The  Register,  Baltimore,  Md.,  183.5,  p.  70. 

2  The  Horlicultiinsf,  1801,  p.  129. 

^Annual  Beport  of  the  Michigan  State  Fomological  Soeietg,  Lansing,  ld78,  j).  2.56. 

■* Discussion  before  the  Fruit-Growers'  Society  of  Western  New  York.  Genesee 
Farmer,  1861,  p.  89. 

f'Ibid. 

•J  Vineland  correspondent  of  The  Cultivator  and  Country  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y., 
1868,  p.  291. 


26  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

village  as  early  as  tbe  year  1870,  but  could  uot  then  be  found  in  the  sur- 
rounding-  orchards/  where  it  has  siuce  appeared. 
In  1873  Alexander  Pnllen  declared  that — 

The  peach  trees  cultivated  in  orchards  here  [central  Delaware]  usually  live  from 
twenty  to  twenty-iive  years,  and  have  been  known  to  live  forty  or  even  fifty  ;  while 
in  New  Jersey,  where  peaches  are  cultivated  extensively  for  sale,  orchards  planted 
live  only  from  seven  to  ten  years.* 

In  1875  Colonel  Wilkius^  declared  that  "in  New  Jersey  the  peach  be- 
longs to  the  past." 

In  1877  Thomas  C.  Haywood,  of  Flemington,  Hunterdon  County,  N. 
J.,  says  of  peach  trees :  * 

The  duration  of  bearing  is  from  five  to  seven  years  from  commencement.  This 
will  vary  from  several  causes,  such  as  variety  of  soil,  exposure,  etc.,  some  orchards 
bearing  for  ten  years,  some  not  giving  more  than  three  or  four  good  crops. 

In  1882  Professor  Penhallow  writes :  ^ 

In  New  Jersey,  where  the  ravages  of  the  disease  have  been  more  seriously  felt  than 
elsewhere,  the  southern  counties  were  formerly  the  center  of  the  peach  industry  for 
the  entire  State,  but,  owing  to  the  prevalence  of  the  yellows  the  peach  orchards 
have  been  gradually  moving  northward,  until  at  the  present  time  the  counties  of 
Morris  and  Hunterdon  have  the  largest  interest  involved,  and  the  prospect  is  that 
a  few  more  years  will  see  even  these  localities  deprived  of  the  industry. 

Again  we  read:^ 

The  peach  growers  of  New  Jersey  consider  an  orchard  worth  nothing  after  the  age 
of  nine  years.  At  that  time  they  root  out  all  the  trees  as  they  would  so  many  corn 
stumps,  and  use  the  land  for  general  crops,  ydantiug  a  young  orchard  of  seedlings 
each  year  to  make  good  the  loss. 

In  1887  W.  F,  Stavely,  of  Still  Pond,  Md.,  visited  Hunterdon  County, 
and  vvas  told  by  growers  at  Cedar  Hill  that  it  was  their  custom  to  plant 
peach  orchards  every  year,  removing  those  already  planted  when  five, 
or  six  years  old.  Yellows  is  very  destructive,  and  growers  consider 
themselves  fortunate  if  they  secure  two  crojjs  from  an  orchard.'  This 
county  produces  many  peaches.  In  1887,  John  W.  Cox,  commission  mer- 
erchaut,  bought  90  carloads  for  the  Philadelphia  trade,  and  thinks  he 
did  not  secure  over  10  per  cent,  of  the  entire  crop.**  In  fact,  the  prin- 
cipal orchards  of  New  Jersey  are  now  located  there. 

The  condition  of  peach  growing  in  New  Jersey  in  1887  is  partially 


'A.  J.  Pearson.  Procefdivf/s  of  the  Xttr  Jcrsen  Slaie  HorlicKllurul  Socicfj/,  le8f), 
p.  182.     Newark,  N.  J.,  1887. 

'  Report  on  Peaches,  by  chairman  of  the  committee,  to  the  Central  Delaware  Fruit- 
Growers'  Association,  January,  1873.     The  Maryland  Farmer,  1873,  p.  77. 

^  Loco  cit. 

■•  lieporl  of  New  Jersey  State  Board  of  A(/ricuUnre,  1877,  p.  1*29. 

■^ Peach  Yellows.  By  D.  P.  Penhallow,  B.  S.  Houghton  Farm  Experiment  Dejyart- 
went.     Diseases  of  Plants,  1882.     Series  III,  No.  2,  p.  27. 

*^  Ibid.,  p.  28;  and  Houghton  Farm  Experiment  Department,  Diseases  of  Plants,  1883, 
p.  60.  See  also  a  paper  by  Professor  Penhallow  on  "Diseases  of  Plants,"  Popular 
Science  Monthly,  New  York,  1884,  p.  386. 

"  Conversation  at  Still  Pond,  August  .5,  1888. 

''Conversation  at  Chestertown,  Md.,  August  1,  1888. 


YELLOWS    IN    NEW    JERSEY.  27 

set  forth  by  the  statistician  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
ciiltuie  iu  a  paper  npon  -'  Peach  Yellows."'  This  paper  is  a  digest  of 
reports  by  correspondents,  and  deals  es[)ecially  with  the  distribution  of 
the  disease.  New  Jersey  contains  twenty-one  connties.  Reports  were 
received  from  fifteen  counties,  in  nearly  all  of  which  the  yellows  is  said 
to  be  present.  The  digest  by  counties  appears  to  be  sufiBciently  inter- 
esting to  be  reproduced  in  full : 

Atlantic:  Peach  yellows  liave  doue  much  damage  liero  in  years  past.  Bergcu  :  Very 
common  ;  few  trees  are  grown  on  that  account.  Burlington  :  Few  orchards  without 
its  appearance ;  and  as  the  crop  is  oue  of  the  most  profitable,  where  it  can  be  had  of 
fine  quality,  the  discussion  of  the  topic  "peach  yellows"  attracts  much  interest  iu 
our  State  and  local  horticultural  societies.  Camden  :  Very  few  peach  orchards  in 
this  county,  owing  to  the  prevalence  of  the  yellows.  '  *  *  Cajtc  May  :  In  some 
localities  quite  common.  Essex  :  Peach  growing  died  out  of  this  county  many  years 
ago,  and  it  is  impossible  to  get  much  information  ou  this  subject.  Gloucester  :  Not  as 
common  as  formerly.  i7H«/('rf?o»  ;  It  is  common.  Mercer:  In  this  locality  there  are 
some  diseased  peach  trees  ;  whether  it  is  the  yellows  or  not,  it  is  hard  to  tell,  for  if 
these  very  trees  which  show  disease  are  properly  treated  with  certain  chemicals  they 
will  put  on  a  green  appearance  aud  bear  fruit.  Middlesex  :  No  such  disease  reported 
in  this  couuty.  Morris:  It  is  common.  Salem:  It  is  common.  Somerset:  It  is  very 
common  aud  general.  Union:  It  is  common.  TVarren  :  It  is  very  common,  and  the 
only  remedy  is  to  terminate  the  existence  of  the  trees. 

The  disease  has  been  reported  to  me  from  two  additional  counties, 
Monmouth  aud  Cumberland,  and  I  have  the  statement  from  another 
grower  that  yellows  is  common  iu  Middlesex  County.  Concerning 
southern  New  Jersey,  the  following  statements  from  growers  will  be 
of  interest. 

In  answer  to  inquiries  concerning  the  existence  of  yellows  in  the 
vicinity  of  Roadstown,  J.  McSinalley  replies  :^ 

We  have,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  what  you  are  inquiring  after.  It  is  becoming  general 
throughout  southern  New  Jersey.  I  have  two  orchards — one  set  four,  the  other  five 
years;  one  on  laud  highly  improved,  the  other  on  poor  land.  I  see  but  little  difier- 
ence  in  disease.  We  have  never  been  troubled  much  until  within  five  or  six  years, 
but  it  is  on  the  increase,  attacking  younger  trees  that  are  making  good  growth,  and 
filling  them  with  what  we  call  water-sprouts  on  the  trnnk  and  large  limbs.  Do  not 
know  of  any  remedy. 

To  siuiilar  inquiries  respecting  South  Vinelaud  John  C.  Wheeler  re- 
plies:-' 

Peach  yellows,  having  all  the  characteristics  you  describe,  is  present  in  my  orchards 
and  exists  to  quite  an  extent  in  this  part  of  the  country.  It  appeared  in  my  orchard 
four  years  ago. 

I  have  dug  out  about  6  per  cent,  of  the  trees  as  useless  and  about  4  per  cent,  that 
showed  premature  fruit,  though  otherwise  apparently  healthy,  for  fear  they  would 
injure  healthy  trees. 

Concerning  Greenwich,  near  Delaware  River,  Charles  Miller  writes: " 

'  lieport  on  Condition  of  Growing  Crops,  etc.,  August,  1887,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, Washington,  D.  C,  pp.  37-2-380 
-Letter  of  January  30,  1888. 
■'  Letter  of  January  27,  1888. 
^  Letter  of  February  4,  1888. 


28  SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS 

The  pecacli  yello\YS  are  hi  all  the  orchards  of  this  viciuity.  TIic  fruit  on  a  diseased 
tree  will  ]>reiiiature  and  rot;  and  a  starved  growth  of  shoots  will  appear  on  the 
branches  or  body  of  the  tree. 

It  has  not  been  of  much  injury  to  us  nntil  the  last  live  or  six  years.  Our  orchards 
now  will  premature  one-tenth  or  more  the  first  year  of  bearing.  It  will  begin  to  show 
in  an  orchard  the  second  year  even  before  it  begins  to  frnit.  In  some  localities  they 
do  better  than  I  have  stated  and  in  others  not  so  well. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  nps  and  downs  of  peach-growing  in  New  Jer- 
sey have  been  man}'.  In  spite  of  all  reverses  growers  have  continued 
to  phtnt  peach  trees.  In  many  instances  yellows  has  swept  these  away 
before  fruiting  age,  while  in  others  they  have  lived  long  enough  to  re- 
turn a  handsome  profit.  Many  growers  consider  the  peach  profitable 
in  si)ite  of  yellows,  and  plant  expecting  to  lose  their  orchards  after  two 
or  three  crops. 

Eastern  New  Yorl: — According  to  A.  J.  Downing  {I.  c.)  the  yellows 
reached  southern  New  York  prior  to  1814,  According  to  William 
Prince^  it  was  present  as  early  as  1801. 

In  182G  a  writer  in  tlie  New  York  Evening  Post  says,^  "  The  cause 
of  the  decay  in  our  peach  trees  is  the  borer,"'  but  furnishes  do  satisfac- 
tory proof. 

In  1833  Michael  Floy  edited  an  edition  of  Lindley's  "Guide,"^  having 
had  thirty  years'  experience  as  a  nurseryman  in  New  York.  In  treat- 
ing of  peaches  and  nectarines  he  discarded  Lindley  entirely  and  wrote 
a  chapter  of  his  own,  from  which  I  quote: 

About  twenty  or  twenty-five  years  ago  peaches  were  raised  here  in  the  greatest 
abundance,  and  with  only  a  moderate  share  of  attention  in  great  perfection.  That 
this  time,  however,  has  gone,  etc.  (p.  363). 

Aside  from  a  possible  change  in  climate  he  assigns  four  reasons  for 
this  decay.  First,  budding  on  peach  stocks;  second,  the  borer  ;  third, 
a  too  rapid  growth,  forming  a  straggling  tree  likely  to  be  broken  down 
by  high  winds;  and  fourth,  the  yellows.     Of  the  latter  he  says. 

The  trees  of  late  years  are  subject  to  what  has  been  deemed  a  disease,  called  the 
yellows  from  the  circumstance  that  the  trees  have  a  yellow,  sickly  appearance.    "    *    » 

In  1832,  after  a  severe  winter,  some  of  his  own  trees — 

Ripened  their  fruit  prematurely,  without  having  anything  of  the  true  llavor;  and, 
what  is  remarkable,  every  diseased  tree,  of  whatever  kind,  seemed  to  bear  the  same  red 
and  red-speckled,  tasteless,  and  insipid  peach,  some  of  them  coming  to  maturity  a 
mouth  too  soon. 

He  says  all  these  "  were  perfectly  sound  and  healthy  the  summer 
previous,"  and  thinks  the  yellows  was  caused  by  the  severe  winter, 
which  injured  the  trees  without  killing  their..  He  says  that  in  every 
instance  he  found  the  pith  of  such  trees  was  black  or  black  spotted 
(p.  365). 

'  Treatise  on  Horticulture,  N.  5r.,  182d. 

2  Quoted  in  American  Journal  of  Science  and  Arts,  1st  series.  Vol.  XI,  1826. 

^  J  Guide  to  the  Orchard  and  Fruit  Garden,  etc.,  by  George  Lindley.  Edited  by 
John  Lindley.  First  American  from  the  last  London  edition,  by  Michael  Floy,  gar- 
dener and  nurseryman  and  corresponding  member  of  the  Horticultural  Society  of 
Loudon.     New  York,  1833.    The  second  edition  of  this  book  was  published  about  1845, 


YELLOWS    IN    SOJTHEASTERN    NEW    YORK.  29 

Somewhat  later  Dowuiug '  declares  that — 

Fifteen  j-ears  ago  [1834J  there  was  scarcely  a  tree  in  the  vicinity  of  Newburgh  [ou 
the  lower  Hiidsou]  that  was  not  more  or  less  diseased  with  the  yellows.  By  pursuing 
the  course  we  have  indicated  [digging  and  burning],  the  disease  has  almost  wholly 
disappeared. 

Ill  184L  ^The  Cultivator  distingiiisbes  between  the  effects  of  the  borer 
and  the  yellows,  and  says  of  the  latter: 

Within  a  few  years  a  disease  called  the  yellows  has  destroyed  many  of  the  best 
trees  or  orchards  in  the  Northern  or  Middle  States. 

In  the  same  volume,  D.  Tomlinson,  of  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  tells  how 
to  destroy  the  borer,  and  adds  : 

The  yellows  is  complained  of  at  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.,  and  in  New  England.  It  has 
not  appeared  here. 

In  1840,  in  the  paper  from  which  I  have  already  quoted,  W.  R.  Prince, 
of  Flushing,  Long  Island,  sa^'s: 

In  this  island  the  malady  became  exhausted  some  years  since  by  the  utter  destruc- 
tion of  the  old  orchards,  and  the  determination  not  to  plant  new  oues  until  it  became 
extinct.  This  proved  most  fortunate  as  the  disease  has  been  for  years  banished  from 
Long  Island,  and  now  new  orchards  are^pringiug  up  everywhere  *  *  *  "redolent 
with  health." 

In  1852  the  yellows  is  mentioned  as  that  disease  "  which  for  thirty  years 
has  killed  off  the  trees  by  thousands."^ 
In  1878  Charles  Downing  writes  from  Newbuigh,  on  the  Hudson:* 

We  have  had  the  yellows  here  at  intervals  lor  over  sixty  years,  sometimes  con- 
tinuing for  live  or  six  years  and  then  several  years  free  from  it. 

In  1883  yellows  was  quite  prevalent  along  the  west  side  of  the  Hud- 
son, in  Orange  and  Ulster  Counties,  N".  Y.^ 

In  1887,  Col.  F.  D.  Curtis^  of  Saratoga  County,  N.  Y.,  is  quoted" 
to  the  effect  that  yellows  is  not  common  in  eastern  New  York,  but  it  has 
been  reported  a  number  of  times-  since  1880  from  southeastern  New 
York,''  and  I  have  been  informed  that  it  was  quite  destructive  in  some 
orchards  on  tlie  lower  Hudson,  in  the  year  1887. 

Connecticut. — Although  yellows  reached  Connecticut  as  early  as  1811: 
or  1815,'^  it  does  not  appear  to  have  immediately  discouraged  peach- 
growing,  for  P.  M.  Augur,^  the  State  pomologist,  declares  that — 

In  the  first  (piarter  of  this  century  the  peach  was  raised  in  Connecticut  with  suc- 
cess.    The  fruit  was  common  and  abundant.     Since  then  it  has  been  a  rare  fruit. 


'A.  J.  Downing,  Tlw,  Hoiikultiirist,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1849,  p.  503. 

2  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1841,  p.  U5  and  p.  131. 

^The  I'hnujh,  Loom,  and  Jnril,  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  1852,  Vol.  V.,  Part  I,  p. 
347. 

''The  Canadian  Horticulturint,  1878,  p.  173. 

sPeach  Yellows,  Peuhallow.  M.  F.  Exp.  DvpH  Diseases  of  Plants,  1883.  Appendix 
to  Series  III,  No.  2,  pp.  56,  57,  and  58. 

'^Condition  of  Growing  Crops,  August,  1887,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  p.  374. 

"I The  Country  Gentleman,  1884 (?);  Report  of  Connecticut  Board  of  Agriculture,  1884, 
p.  25. 

*A.  J.  Downing,  Fruiti  and  Fruit  Trees  of  America;  and  Noyes  Darling,  The  Culti- 
vator, Albany,  N.  Y.,  1845,  p.  60. 

^Report  of  the  Connecticut  Board  of  Agriculture.  1872,  p.  332,  and  1883,  p.  14. 


30  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

C.  Butler,  of  Plyinoutli,  wiiliiig  on  yellows  says  : ' 

Icameiuto  tins  country  early  in  IriOl  and  liave  resided  here  ever  since.  When  I 
first  came  here  peaches  were  very  plenty.  They  were  not  raised  for  market,  but  tor 
the  family  to  eat,  preserve,  and  give  to  the  neighbors  aud  friends,  and  were  almost 
as  sure  a  crop  as  potatoes.  This  continued  to  be  the  case  until  1810.  In  December, 
1809,  there  was  a  very  extensive  and  severe  cold  freezing  turn,  which  killed  nearly 
all  the  peaches  in  this  vicinity  and  as  far  west  as  to  Lake  Erie.  Since  then,  for  some 
cause  unknown  to  me,  it  has  been  much  more  difficult  to  grow  peaches  in  this  part  of 
the  country,  but  no  more  difficult  on  plowed  laud  than  on  sward. 

Mr.  Butler  says  he  has  had  experience  with  yellows.  He  believes  it 
is  contagious,  but  has  uo  proof  beyond  the  coinnion  observation  that 
"  when  one  tree  was  infected  other  trees  standing  near  would  be,  nn- 
less  the  infected  tree  was  immediately  removed,  in  which  case  the 
healthy  trees  would  generally  be  preserved." 

In  tlie  vicinity  of  New  Haven  yellows  appeared  as  early  as  1820  and 
destroyed  thousands  of  trees  and  nearly  put  an  end  to  peach  growing 
betw^een  the  years  1830  and  1840.- 

According  to  John  F.  Fitts,  of  East  Windsor,  peaches  were  plenty 
fifty  years  ago  [1827J.  The  soil  is  suited  to  them  and  the}'  grow  well, 
but  die  soon.' 

From  West  Chester,  in  18'40,  David  Foote  writes  as  follows :  * 

I  have  a  number  of  trees  of  the  yellow  kind,  which  ripens  usually  about  the  1st 
of  October,  but  last  season  [1839]  they  bore  fruit  resembling  the  red  rare  ripe,  and 
ripened  about  a  month  earlier  than  ever  before.  Now  the  question  is,  what  was  the 
cause  of  this  change  of  color  and  time  of  ripening  f  I  can  not  tell  unless  it  is  caused 
by  some  disease  which  may  cause  the  premature  death  of  the  trees. 

In  1849  a  committee  for  the  State  of  Connecticut  reported  to  the 
Second  Congress  of  Fruit  Growlers  on  peaches  as  follows  :^ 

People  in  this  region  have  become  very  much  discouraged  in  regard  to  raising  this 
delicious  fruit.  The  trees  have  the  yellows  in  many  cases  before  they  begin  to  bear, 
aud  if  they  bear  at  all,  it  is  only  for  one  or  two  seasons;  seedlings  or  some  inferior 
.sorts  may  be  an  exception  [  ?].  The  choice  standard  varieties,  if  they  bear  so  much 
as  one  season,  do  not  last.  One  of  your  committee,  ten  years  ago,  raised  as  tine 
peaches  as  could  be  desired  and  in  great  abundance,  but  now,  on  the  same  ground, 
with  much  pains,  is  unable  to  get  any  worth  naming. 

A.  J.  Downing,  chairman  ot  the  general  fruit  committee,  edited  the 
proceedings,  aud  comments  on  the  above  report  as  follows: 

The  explanation  of  the  great  prevalence  of  yellows  in  Connecticut  lies,  we  imagine, 
in  the  fiict  of  the  large  introduction  of  later  years  of  unhealthy  trees,  bought  indis- 
criminately in  the  markets  of  New  York.     A  little  attention  to  destroying  every  tree 


I  The  Cultivator,  N.  Y.,  1813,  p.  182. 

-Noyes  Darling  :  The  Xew  York  Farmer  and  Horticultural  Repositorii,  New  York,  1831, 
p.  9;  aud  The  Cultivator,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1845,  p.  60,  aud  1S46,  p.  141. 

•'  Report  of  Connecticut  Slate  Board  of  Jgricullure,  1877,  p.  340. 

■^The  Cultivator,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1840,  p.  95. 

•'•Report  of  George  Gabriel,  A.  S.  Munson,  V.  M.  Douw,  II.  Terry,  aud  W.  W.  Tur- 
ner. Proceedings  of  the  Secoud  Congress  of  Fruit  Growers,  convened  under  Ihe  ;nis- 
pices  of  the  American  Institute,  New  York  City,  October,  1819.  Trans,  of  the,  Am. 
Inst,  1849.     (8th  An.  Report).     Albany,  N.  Y.,  1850.     Assembly  No.  199,  p.  275. 


YELLOWS    IN    CONNECTICUT    AND    MASSACHUSETTS.  31 

already  affeetctl  aiul  in  iutiocluciuj'  those  of  healthy  coustitiition  from  otlier  districts 
will  very  soon  result  in  the  production  of  the  finest  frnit  again,  as  has  been  abun- 
dantly [.roved  in  many  i^arts  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

Ill  1852,  Jobu  L.  Yoemaiis,  of  Columbia,  Coun.,  writes' :  "  The  yel- 
lows are  destrojiug  our  peach  trees."  He  knows  no  remedy  but  to  dig 
out. 

In  1855,  Gurdon  W.  Eussel,  of  Hartford,  writes:* 

The  disease  called  yellows  is  very  destructive  and  has  destroyed  thousand  of  trees 
throughout  ihe  county  and  will  destroy  thousands  more,  until  cultivators  will  pro- 
cure their  trees  from  healthy  localities  and  will  be  willing  to  bestow  some  care  and 
attention  on  them  when  planted  and  fruiting.  The  disease  is  eminently  contaniuns 
and  is  capable  of  being  propagated,  we  believe,  from  blossom  to  blossom  by  insects, 
and  as  yet  we  have  found  no  etfectua!  remedy. 

In  18GG  William  H.  White,  of  South  Windsor,  writes  that  ])eai;lies 
are  infested  with  yellows,  and  are  generally  "  things  of  the  past.'"  The 
same  year  William  C.  Yoemans,  of  Columbia,  writes  of  the  peach  :  ■* 

Its  cultivation  is  now  nearly  abandoned,  and  has  been  for  a  few  years,  in  consc- 
i]nence  of  that  scourge  to  that  fruit  known  as  yellows. 

In  1875  P.  M.  Augur''  notes  incidentally,  "  the  prevalence  of  yellows 
in  Connecticut." 

Under  date  of  May  25,  1887,  in  a  comrannication  to  the  Department, 
Henry  J.  Nettleton,  of  Durham,  Conn.,  says  that  his  peach  trees  have 
been  troubled  by  yellows  and  are  short-lived,  especially  if  they  make  a 
rapid  and  thrifty  growth. 

Massachusetts. — This  State  is  less  adapted  to  peach-growing  than  Con- 
necticut, and  references  to  yellows  are  fewer. 

In  1833,  The  Orchardist,  of  Boston,  declares  that  the  disease  is  not 
known  in  New  England.^ 

John  B.  Moore,  a  ])rominent  member  of  the  Massachusetts  State  Hor- 
ticultural Society,  declared  in  1S8J  that  yellows  was  unknown  in  the 
vicinity  of  Boston  forty-five  years  ago — /.  e.,  in  1837 — but  says  that 
"  when  it  came,  it  swept  everything."  ' 

Samuel  Hartwell,of  Lincoln,  in  a  communication  on  peach  yellows 
to  Professor  Penhallow,**  says  that : 

Thirty  or  forty  years  ago  [1842-1852]  peaches  were  grown  in  great  abundance  and 
perfection  in  this  vicinity  [Northeast  Massachusetts],  but  for  the  last  twenty  years 
[since  1862]  have  been  almost  abandoned. 

'  Eeporl  of  the  Commiasioncr  of  Patents  {Agriculture).     Washington,  D.  C,  1852,  p. 

\m. 

-  Traniacdons  Connecticut  State  Board  of  Agriculture,  Hartford,  Conn.,  18.5.5,  p.  138. 
"'  Report  of  Connecticut  Board  of  Agriculture,  186(3,  Hartford,  1867,  p.  169. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  173. 

^Report  of  the  Connecticut  Board  of  Agriculture,  187r,  p.  248. 
**  Michigan  Pomological  Report  1873,  p.  21. 
"  Trans.  Mass.  Slate  Hort.  Society,  1882,  Part  I,  p.  140. 

"Peach  Yellows.  Penhallow.  H.  F.  Exp,  Dep'l  Diseases  of  Plants,  18-2.  Serieslll, 
Z^o.  2,  p.  27. 


32  SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS. 

In  1818,  William  Kenrick  writes  of  3'ellows  :  ^ 

But  there  is  another  uialady,  which  I  believe  is  unkuowu  in  New  England,  or  at 
east  I  have  never  seen  or  heard  of  such  a  disease  with  us. 

The  earliest  clear  account  of  tbe  occurrence  of  tbis  disease  in  Mass- 
acliusetts,  which  I  have  found,  is  that  given  by  T.  W.  Harris,  tbe  en- 
tomologist, who  saw  yellows  in  his  garden  in  1854.     He  says:^ 

For  tlie  first  time  in  eleven  years  the  symptoms  of  this  disease  have  appeared  in 
my  garden.  It  is  confined  to  two  branches  on  the  north  side  of  one  peach  tree,  the 
fruit  of  which  is  becoming  red  some  three  or  four  weeks  too  soon,  while  a  few  wiry 
shoots,  clotlied  with  diminutive  and  pale  leaves,  have  sprouted  upon  the  branches. 
Neither  borers  nor  the  Tomieus  laminariiis  have  been  discovered  in  the  tree;  and  the 
canseof  the  disease  remains  as  much  a  mystery  to  me  as  to  other  cultivators.  *  *  * 
In  former  years  peach  trees  have  rarely  snfliered  from  yellows  in  this  neighborhood 
[Cambridge,  Mass.],  where  now  many  trees  are  affected  by  it. 

In  1878,  yellows  was  present  at  Amherst,  in  western  Massachusetts/ 

The  foregoiug  embraces  so  much  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn  about 
the  northern  and  northeastern  movement  of  yellows. 

Siunmary. — So  far  as  its  present  distribution  is  concerned  we  may  in 
fev  that  the  disease  occurs,  or  is  likely  to  occur,  anywhere  from  the 
Delaware  Kiver  north  and  northeast,  through  i^ew  Jersey,  eastern  New 
York,  Connecticut,  Ehode  Island,  and  Massachusetts,  to  the  extreme 
limits  of  peach-growing  in  the  more  northern  New  England  States. 

It  would  seem  also  that  the  disease  did  not  appear  on  the  northern 
limits  of  peach-growing  until  many  years  after  it  had  destroyed  orchards 
in  more  favorable  southern  locations. 

2.  Westward  and  north-westward  movement. — In  the  follow- 
ing pages  is  given  the  substance  of  what  I  have  been  able  to  learn  con- 
cerning the  appearance  of  yellows  in  central  and  western  Pennsylvania, 
in  western  New  York,  Ontario,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Michigan. 

Pennsylvania. — In  1851,  William  G.  Warren,  of  Centre  County,  Pa., 
writes:^ 

a  majority  of  the  peach  trees  in  the  country  have  been  destroyed  by  the  yellows. 
*     *     *     Trees  affected  by  the  yellows  ripen  their  fruit  prematurely. 

In  1852,  at  the  Philadelphia  meeting  of  the  American  Pomological 
Society,  the  committee  on  peaches  presented  reports  from  fruit  growers 
in  dittVrent  States,  one  of  which,  by  a  Pennsylvanian,  stated  that 
"peaches  have  done  but  ill  with  us  for  some  years  past.  The  yellows 
have  swept  off  thousands  of  trees."^ 

1  The  New  American  Orchardist,  by  William  Kenrick,  Boston,  1848.  Eighth  edition, 
p.  203. 

-Remarks  on  some  of  the  diseases  and  insects  atlecting  fruit  trees  and  vines,  /'roc. 
Am.  Pomoloif'ual  Society,  Boston  meeting,  18.')4,  p.  212.  Printed  also  in  Tlie  American 
Farmer,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1855,  pp.  231-35. 

3  Traus.  Mass.  Hort.  Sociely,  1882,  Part  I,  p.  120. 

*Bcport  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  (Af/riciiltitrc).     Washington,  D.  C,  1851, p.  242. 

^Thc  Plough,  Loom,  and  Anvil,  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  1852,  Vol.  V,  Part  II,  p. 
38. 


YELLOWS    IN    PENNSYLVANIA.  33 

In  1867,  and  for  ^-cars  previous  to  that  date,  peacli  yellows  was  very 
prevalent  aud  destructive  in  the  counties  of  York,  Cumberland,  and 
Daupbin,  i.  e.,  in  the  vicinity  of  Harrisburff.  I  have  this  statement  ou 
the  authority  of  J.  W.  Kerr,  president  of  the  Peninsula  Horticultural 
Society,  now  of  Denton,  Md.,  but  then  resident  in  Pennsylvania,  and 
personally  acquainted  with  the  disease.^ 

In  1875  "Casper  Hiller  said  that  the  yellows  was  less  prevalent  [in 
Pennsylvania]  than  formerly."^ 

In  1887  I  received  samples  of  diseased  trees  from  McAlistexville, 
Juniata  County,  Pa.,  with  the  statement  that  the  disease  was  in  young 
orchards,  and  was  doing  much  injury.  The  peacbes  ripened  prema- 
turely aud  the  trees  most  diseased  put  out  the  usual  wiry  growth. 

The  same  year,  William  G.  Smith,  of  Pittsburgh,  Pa,,  reports  a  gen- 
eral freedom  from  yellows,-'  and  Henry  L.  Kupp,  of  Cumberland  County, 
says:  "Yellows  is  not  a  common  disease,  but  is  sometimes  brought 
from  infected  nurseries,  not  appearing  in  healthy  orchards  planted  with 
trees  not  infected."*  Mr.  Rupp  adds  that  in  another  county  of  Penn- 
sylvania on  poorer  soil  the  yellows  sweeps  away  whole  orchards. 

I  have  myself  seen  the  disease  in  a  number  of  i)laces  along  the  line 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Central  Railroad,  particularly  in  the  summer  of 
1888,  near  Pittsburgh,  near  Johnstown,  and  near  Harrisburg. 

Ohio. — Yellows  was  reported  from  Ohio  as  early  as  1849.  Between 
that  date  and  1851,  an  orchard  of  600  trees  belonging  to  A.  W.  F,  Geniu, 
of  Saint  Clairsville,  is  said  to  have  been  nearly  all  destroyed  by  it.^ 
Another  Ohio  man,  living  in  Richland  County,  says:  "Our  peach  trees 
are  somewhat  affected  with  yellows."^  No  symptoms  are  mentioned 
by  either  writer,  and  the  injury  may  have  been  due  to  something  else. 

In  1879  the  secretary  of  the  State  Horticultural  Society  writes  as 
follows  about  yellows  -J 

The  disease,  which  has  hardly  been  known  in  Ohio  except  by  uame,  has  cansed 
much  trouble  aud  apprehension  among  the  peach  growers  of  the  lake  shore  district 
of  Michigan  for  a  year  or  two  past.  It  has  ruined  quite  a  large  number  of  orchards 
and  seems  to  be  still  spreading,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  to  arrest  it  by  cutting  down 
aud  burning  all  aficcted  trees  as  is  done  by  compulsory  law.  It  appears,  too,  from 
recent  accounts,  that  the  disease  made  its  appearance  the  past  season  and  is  spread- 
ing rapidly  this  summer  [July,  1879]  in  the  lake  shore  peach  orchards  of  Niagara 

1  Letter  of  April  16,  18i-<8.  See,  also,  statement  in  I'rocecdiii{/s  of  PcninstiJa  Tlorti- 
cidiural  Society,  Dover,  Del.,  1888.     p.  47. 

^Report  of  Pennsylvania  Fruit  Growers'  Association.  The  CuUirator  and  Country 
Gentleman,  Alhauy,  N.  Y.,  1876,  p.  .'^lO. 

^Condition  of  Groiiing  Crops,  Auyitst,  18S7,  Department  of  Agri  Ailture,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C,  p.  374. 

*Ibid. 

^Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  (Agriculture),  Washington,  D.  C,  1851,  p. 
369. 

<^md.,  p.  378. 

''Tivelfth  Annual  Iliport  of  the  Ohio  State  Horticultural  Society,  Coliimbu.s,  1879, 
p.  106. 

11245— :^^o.  9 3 


34  SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS. 

County,  N.  Y.,  ISO  that  there  is  reason  to  fear  that  the  lake  shore  regiou  of  Ohio  will 
have  ii  visitation  of  the  malady. 

I  have  examined  these  Ohio  reports  from  1870  to  1887,  but  find  noth- 
ing more  on  yellows,  except  some  denials  of  its  presence  from  different 
parts  of  the  State. 

In  1887,  however,  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  disease  was 
present  in  widely  different  parts  of  Ohio.  Under  date  of  September 
10,  1887,  Prof.  W.  R.  Lazenby,  of  Columbus,  writes: 

Our  State  fair  was  held  here  last  week  and  the  exhibit  of  peaches  was  one  of  the 
finest  that  I  have  ever  seen  in  Ohio.  In  conversation  with  many  of  the  growers  from 
the  northern  part  of  the  State,  I  find  that  the  yellows  is  wide-spread  and  many  trees 
are  being  destroyed  each  year. 

Under  date  of  September  12, 1887,  H.  G.  Tryon,  of  Willoughby,  Lake 
County,  writes  of  yellows: 

We  have  a  full  supply  of  diseased  fruit,  »  *  *  though  we  aim  to  take  out  every 
diseased  tree  as  soon  as  practicable  after  discovering  it.  I  always  have  trees  that 
need  destroying,  and  suppose  this  will  continue  to  be  the  case  as  long  as  I  have  peach 
trees  left.     *     *     *     We  have  had  the  disease  among  our  trees  since  1879. 

Western  New  YorJi. — I  fim  not  able  to  determine  how  early  peaches 
began  to  be  cultivated  in  western  New  York.  In  Ontario  County  they  . 
were  certainly  grown  by  the  whites  considerably  prior  to  1821,'  and 
were  undoubtedly  cultivated  by  the  Indians  at  a  much  earlier  date. 
Mr.  J.  J.  Thomas  thinks  seedling  trees  were  cultivated  by  the  white 
settlers  as  early  as  1800.  These  were  rare-ripes,  and  Indian  or  blood 
peaches.  He  thinks  the  first  budded  trees  were  set  about  1815  or  1820. 
His  father  set  many  New  Jersey  trees  in  1821.'^ 

It  was  soon  discovered  that  certain  localities  in  western  New  York 
were  quite  well  adapted  to  peach  growing,  and  in  these,  if  we  may  be- 
lieve concurrent  testimony,  the  peach  was  grown  for  many  years  entirely 
free  from  yellows.  Precisely  how  early  the  disease  appeared  is  uncer- 
tain, but  1821,  the  earliest  date  assigned,  is  probably  not  far  from  the 
actual  time  of  its  appearance  in  the  eastern  portion  of  this  district. 

In  1831  David  Thomas,  a  celebrated  fruit-grower  of  Cayuga  County, 
writes  :■' 

Previous  to  the  year  1324  I  had  never  seen  a  peach  tree  with  the  yellows  in  this 
part  of  the  State  of  New  York.  The  ancient  trees  standing  in  the  old  Indian  clearings 
had  escaped  untouched  by  this  malady,  and  the  Au/eria  cxiiiosa  had  only  diminished 
their  vigor  by  mechanical  injuries. 

In  that  year  the  writer  planted  some  trees  from  one  of  the  Flushing 
nurseries,  which  made  a  feeble  growth  and  finally  died.  Being  rare 
and  high  priced  sorts,  he  was  very  desirous  of  continuing  the  varieties, 
and  therefore  budded  into  a  most  thrifty  stock  in  his  nursery,  and  also 
inserted  some  buds  into  thrifty  trees  in  his  orchard. 


'  The  Michigan  Farmer.     Niles,  Mich.,  1849,  p.  169.     The  writer  remembers  but  one 
failure  of  the  peach  crop  previous  to  1821. 
"Letter  of  November  1,  1888. 
•'  The  New  York  Fanner  (tiid  Horticitllurc.l  UeponHonj,  New  York,  1831,  p.  46. 


YELLOWS    IN    WE8TERN    NEW    YORK.  35 

Oil  tlieyomiff  stock  two  biuls  took  but  uever  sprouted;  aud  in  less  than  a  year  that 
stock  dwindled  like  the  tree  whence  the  buds  were  taken  and  died.  Every  tree  in  my 
peach  orchard  so  budded  has  been  lon<>;  since  dead ;  and  no  other  peach  tree  has  died 
in  that  orchard. 

From  other  statements  in  tliis  article  there  is  some  doubt  whether 
this  was  really  yellows,  bnt  Mr.  J.  J.  Thomas  says  it  was.  At  all 
events  the  disease  did  not  then  have  any  foothold  in  that  vicinity. 

lu  1838  or  1830,  "J.  J.  T.,"  in  The  Genesee  Farmer,^  speaks  of  "the 
ensy  culture  and  rareness  of  disease  in  the  peach  tree  in  western  New 
York." 

A  year  or  two  later  in  The  New  Genesee  Farmer  a  writer  upon  yellows 
says : ^ 

In  western  New  York  more  than  thirty  years  passed  away  after  the  Indian  had  re- 
signed his  old  peach  orchard  to  the  white  man  before  it  was  introduced  amongst  us. 

In  1844,  J.  J.  Thomas  writes  of  yellows:-' 

In  western  New  York  it  is  comparatively  unknown,  and  great  care  should  be  used 
by  cultivators  that  it  be  not  introduced  by  importation. 

In  184(1,  it  is  stated^  that  yellows  has  occasionally  been  imported  into 
western  Xew  York  from  New  Jersey'.  Tiie  disease  does  not,  however, 
iippear  to  liave  become  well  established  until  after  this  date."^ 

The  same  year  Patrick  Barry,  of  Rochester,  declares  that — 

The  peach  is  an  inipoitaut  fruit  in  our  region.  Our  soil  and  climate  are  highly 
favorable  for  its  culture.  *  »  *  The  peach  worm  is  the  chief  difficulty  we  have  to 
oppose,  aud  that  is  not  a  serious  one." 

He  also  says  that — 

There  is  no  i)art  of  the  United  States  where  the  peach  is  more  healthy  or  attains  a 
greater  age  than  in  western  New  York.  It  is  improper  soil  or  culture  and  bad  treat- 
ment that  has  cau.scd  early  decay  where  it  has  occurred. L 

In  1852  a  New  York  fruit-grower,  speaking  for  Eochester,  declares:" 

It  is  notorious  that  tlie  yellows  mentioned  was  first  introduced  there  in  trees  im- 
ported from  New  Jcnsey. 

In  1801,  yellows  was  (luite  at  home  in  some  parts  of  western  New 
York,  but,  as  we  have  already  seen.  New  Jersey  peach  trees  continued 
to  be  phi ii ted  freely.^ 


1  Quoted  in  The  Fanners'  IttyiHicr,  Petersburgh,  Va.,  1839,  p.  261. 

'^  Ibid.,  November,  IH40,  p  007). 

3  The  Ciiinrator,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  IS44,  p.  255. 

■•  The  noiticulturist,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1840,  p.  537. 

s  Ibid.,  184li,  p.  2:37,  and  1848,  p.  34. 

'^The  Genesee  Farmer,  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  1840,  p.  94. 

'Ibid.,  p.  242. 

•*  Report  at  Philadelphia  meeting,  September,  1852,  of  a  committee  of  Am.  Pom.  Soc. 
The  Plonrjh,  Loom,  and  Anril  ,  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  Vol.  Y,  Part  II,  p.  38. 

3  Fruit-Grower's  Society  of  ^Vest  New  York.  Report  in  The  Genesee  Farmer,  Roches- 
ter, March,  1861,  p.  89. 


36  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

lu  1S74,  iu  The  Cultivator  aud  Conntry  Gentleman,'  I  find  the  fol- 
lowing interesting  account  of  peach  growing  iu  ]!siagara  County: 

The  growing  of  the  peach  for  market  is  fast  becoming  a  very  important  branch  of 
industry  in  this  county.  This  is  probably  one  of  the  most  favorable  portions  of  the 
country  for  growing  this  fruit  successfully.  With  ordinary  care  and  culture  the 
peach  here  grows  to  perfection.  Until  within  a  very  few  years  past,  comparatively 
few  have  been  engaged  in  this  business.  Those  few  have  made  money.  But  the 
rest  of  the  farmers  are  beginning  to  find  out  that  raising  peaches  pays,  aud  the  rate 
at  which  orchards  have  been  and  are  being  set  out  is  wonderful.  I  think  that  fully 
one-half  of  the  iieach  orchards  in  this  county  have  been  set  within  the  last  three  years. 
Those  who  a  few  years  since  thought  four  or  five  trees  a  plenty  are  now  setting  at 
the  rate  of  1,000  to  2,000  trees  in  a  single  spring.  Peaches  are  nearly  a  sure  crop  here 
every  year.  The  crop  of  the  past  season  [1874]  was  unusually  large.  *  *  *  As 
nearly  as  can  be  ascertained  there  were  fully  100,000  crates  [three-fourths  bushel  each] 
shipped  from  this  county.  *  *  »  The  average  price  received  by  farmers  was 
about  $1  per  crate. 

In  1877  there  were  still  further  favoral)le  rei)orts  from  this  regiou. 
A  correspondent  of  The  Cultivator  and  Country*  Gentleman^  says  of 
peach  culture  along  Niagara  River: 

Most  of  the  peach  orchards  in  this  region  are  iu  full  vigor.  They  bore  good  crops 
for  the  past  five  years  in  succession.  This  year,  from  some  unknown  cause,  there  are 
very  few.  It  is  estimated  that  the  peach  orchards  of  the  township  of  Niagara  con- 
tain 40,000  trees,  and  it  is  likely  to  become  noted  as  one  of  the  best  peach  regions  of 
the  State.  The  best  peach  regiou  appears  to  be  confiued  to  a  breadth  of  a  mile  or  two 
along  the  river.  Farther  inland  this  crop  has  not  been  so  successful  until  we  reach 
the  neighborhood  of  Lockport. 

We  also  meet  statements  like  the  following  :^ 

Last  summer,  in  reporting  the  success  of  peach  culture  in  the  Niagara  River  [re- 
giou], near  the  falls,  we  mentioned  the  orchard  of  Mr.  Burdett,  which  had  borne  fruit 
for  more  than  twenty  years,  consisting  of  2,000  trees,  and  yielding,  in  a  favorable 
season,  over  .$6,000. 

Judging  from  these  accounts,  yellows  was  not  prevalent  iu  Niagara 
County  in  1874  or  in  1877.  Very  diflerent,  as  we  shall  see,  are  the 
reports  from  this  region  ten  years  later.  The  Ohio  authority  already 
quoted  states  that  yellows  first  appeared  in  the  Lake  shore  orchards 
of  Niagara  County  iu  1878  and  spread  very  rapidly  in  1879;  but  from 
statements  by  A.  M.  Smith^  it  would  appear  reasonably  certain  that  liiis 
disease  was  prevalent  in  several  trees  iu  at  least  one  orchard  in  Niagara 
County  as  early  as  1874  or  1875.  He  also  says  that  hundreds  of  bush- 
els of  high  colored,  insipid,  premature  peaches  were  sold  in  western 
New^  York  in  1877;  that  the  Niagara  orchard  iu  which  he  first  saw  the 
disease  was  totally  destroyed  by  it ;  and  that  several  others  in  the 
vicinity  had  become  badly  affected. 

•  "B.  G.  P."     The  Cultivator  and  Country  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1874,  p.  820. 
2 Quoted  iu  The  Garden,  London,  Englaud,  June,  1878,  p.  474. 

■^  The  Cultivator  and  Country  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1877,  p.  554. 

*  The  Canadian  Horticnlfurisf,  1878,  jip.  1.5,  16. 


YELLOWS    IN    ONTARIO.  37 

In  1880,  Charles  W.  Garfield  says : ' 

Mr.  J.  S.  Woodward,  of  Lockport,  N.  Y.,  put  out  30  acres  of  peach  trees  a  few 
years  ago,  aud  now  he  is  taking  them  all  out  before  having  got  a  cx-op,  all  being  dis- 
eased with  yellows.     He  thinks  they  must  stop  raising  peaches  there. 

In  1S80,  Hon.  T.  T.  Lyon  is  also  reported  as  follows :  ^ 

He  had  heard  that  Western  New  York  was  free  from  yellows,  but  last  winter  he  had 
letters  from  Hamilton,  Ontario,  saying  that  peaches  with  yellows  liad  been  imported 
there  from  New  York,  and  the  disease  was  spreading.  Last  year  [1879]  he  saw  yellows 
near  Rochester  aud  saw  that  the  couuuercial  orchards  there  were  being  ruined  by  it. 
The  claim  that  they  do  not  have  it  there  is  false. 

In  18S5,  judging  from  Dr.  J.  C.  Artlinr's  description,  the  disease  was 
present  to  a  considerable  e.\;tent  in  orchards  in  two  localities  not  many 
miles  from  Geneva.^ 

In  1SS7,  J.  S.  Woodward  himself  says*  yellows  has  "  nearly  finished 
the  orchards."  In  his  opinion  it  was  first  introduced  in  New  Jersey 
trees.     He  does  not  think  the  disease  is  due  to  soil  poverty. 

Col.  F.  D.  Curtis,  of  Saratoga  County,  also  declares^  that  yellows  has 
destroyed  whole  orchards  in  the  western  counties  of  New  York  where 
peach  growing  is  more  prominent,  especially  in  Niagara  and  Ontario. 
It  has  attacked  healthy  orchards  in  vigorous  condition. 

Ontario. — Does  the  disease  occur  in  Canada!  In  the  spring  of  1878, 
A.  M.  Smith,  a  considerable  fruit  grower  of  Drummondville,  Ontario, 
published  in  The  Canadian  Horticulturist  (p.  15)  "A  word  of  warning 
to  peach-growers  of  Ontario,"  in  which  he  sajs  : 

Perhaps  it  is  not  generally  known,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  fact,  that  the  disease  so 
destructive  to  peach  orchards,  called  the  yellows,  has  made  its  appearance  in  our 
midst.  Quite  a  number  of  orchards  on  the  frontier,  particularly  in  the  vicinity  of 
Drummondville  aud  Stamford,  have  had  affected  trees  in  them  the  last  season,  and 
some  in  the  great  peach-growing  section  of  Grimsby.  The  sym2)toms  of  this  disease 
are,  first,  an  enfeebled  vitality,  the  foliage  looks  sickly  ;  and  second,  the  fruit  ripens 
prematurely,  sometimes  two  or  three  weeks  before  its  usual  season  for  maturing,  and 
is  usuallj'  high  colored,  red  aud  flecked  or  spotted,  aud  is  red  around  the  stone.  This 
occurring  in  young  trees  newly  planted  has  led  many  to  think  they  had  some  new 
variety  which  was  very  early  ;  but  the  flavor  is  universally  insipid  aud  watery,  and 
the  fruit  nearly  worthless. 

As  before  mentioned,  Mr.  Smith  saw  this  disease  in  Niagara  County, 
N.  Y.,  as  early  as  1874  or  1875,  and  thinks  there  was  some  of  it  in 
Ontario  at  that  time,  which  is  very  likely,  considering  its  prevalence 
in  1877,  1878,  1879,  and  1880. 

In  the  autumn  of  1878,  Linus  Woolverton,  another  prominent  fruit- 
grower, confirmed  Mr.  Smith's  statements,  attributed  the  disease  to 

^Annual  Report  Secretary  Michigan  State  Horticultural  Society,  Lansing,  Mich.,  1880, 
p.  27.^);  see  also  The  C.  and  C.  Gent.,  1884,  ji.  28,  where  the  orchard  is  said  to  contain 
20  acres  of  p;ood  soil. 

'  Annual  Bej).  of  the  Sec'y  of  the  Mich.  State  Horf.  Soc,  1880,  p.  274. 

^  Third  Annual  Report  of  the  Board  of  Control  of  Xew  York  Ar/ri.  Experiment  Station, 
1884,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1885,  p.  372. 

*  Condition  of  gr owing  crops,  August,  1887,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
Washington,  D.  C,  p.  374. 

^Ibid. 


38  SPECIAL    REPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

trees  imported  from  the  States,  and  drew  up  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  adoi)ted  bv  the  i)each  growers  of  Grimsby  : 

Whereas  wo  are  made  aware  of  the  presence  of  yellows  in  one  or  two  i)eaeh  or- 
chards about  Grimsby:  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  we  do  most  strongly  advise  every  grower  to  carefully  watch  tbe 
first  indications  of  its  approach,  and  at  once  uproot  every  tree  atfected  by  it  ;  and 
further  to  use  the  utmost  caution  in  the  selection  of  trees  for  planting.^ 

D.  W.  Beadle,  nurseryman  and  fruit-grower,  of  St.  Catherines,  and 
formerly  editor  of  The  Cinadian  Horticulturist,  writes  that — 

The  peach  yellows  first  appeared  in  Ontario  about  twelve  years  ago  [y.  e.,  in 
1876J,  almost  simultaneously  at  Grimsby  and  Stamford,  the  first  in  the  county  of 
Lincoln  and  the  second  in  Welland  County.  In  Stamford  it  has  destroyed  mauy  of 
the  orchards  entirely.  In  Grimsby  up  to  the  present  time  its  ravages  have  not  been 
80  severe." 

Bj^  the  year  1880,  the  disease  appears  to  have  become  prevalent  in 
nearly  all  parts  of  the  Niagara  district,  /.  e.,  in  the  neck  of  land  between 
Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Ontario.  Aside  frotn  other  evidence,  the  fact  that 
in  1881  the  legislative  assembly  passed  an  act  to  prevent  the  spread  of 
yellows,  and  amended  the  same  in  1884,  shows  clearly  that  the  disease 
must  have  existed  to  an  alarming  extent.  It  is  now  less  destructive, 
but  still  occurs  in  many  parts  of  the  district. 

Accoixling  to  Mr.  Beadle,  peaches  are  grown  to  some  extent  in  south- 
western Ontario,in  the  counties  of  Norfolk,  Elgin,  Kent,  and  Essex,  along 
Lake  Erie.  I  am  not  informed  whether  yellows  is  there  present,  but  1 
think  it  probable. 

Indiana. — In  Wayne  County,  Ind.,  yellows  appeared  as  early  as  1812, 

if  we  may  credit  the  statements  made  December  24,  ISoO,  by  A.  Iloover, 

of  Centreville.^    lie  says : 

All  attempts  to  raise  peach  trees  have  proved  unavailing  for  the  last  eight  or  ten 
years  in  consecinence  of  the  yellows. 

There  isuothing  improbable  in  this  statement,  but  as  it  stands  alone 
without  any  description  of  the  disease  no  special  weight  need  be  given 
to  it.  In  later  years,  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State,  not  far  from 
Michigan  City,  the  disease  is  reported  to  have  prevailed  to  a  consider- 
able extent.  Peaches  are  not  grown  very  extensively,  except  in  south- 
ern Indiana,  and  I  know  nothing  positive  about  the  present  distribution 
of  yellows  in  that  State. 

.l//(7(///au.— reach-growing  in  Michigan  may  for  convenience  be  di- 
vided into  an  early,  middle,  and  later  period,  the  first  and  second 
periods  ending,  respectively,  with  1839  and  18GG. 

Michigan  was  settled  mnch  more  recently  than  southeastern  Penn- 
sjivania.  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  or  eastern  Maryland.  Although  a 
fertile  soil  and  a  favorable  climate  offered  special  inducements  to  set- 

•  The  Canadian  HorlicuUnrist,  1878,  p.  173. 

"Letter  of  .June  1,  1888. 

■* Patent  Office  Eejmrt  {A fjricull tire),  Washington,  D.  C,  1850,  p.  375. 


EARLY    PEACH    GROWING    IN    MICHIGAN.  39 

tiers,  tlie  tide  of  immigration  flowed  steadily-  past  the  State  for  many 
years,  and  did  not  set  strongly  into  it  nntil  after  1830.  Consequently 
peacb-growing  for  commercial  purposes  was  begun  more  than  one  hun- 
dred years  later  than  in  the  Atlantic  coast  States.  Seedling  peaches 
were  grown,  however,  in  a  small  way  all  over  southern  Michigan  from 
the  time  of  the  earliest  settlements. 

In  Berrien  County,  prior  to  1809,  Mr.  Burnett  planted  peach  trees,  some 
of  which  were  living  in  1829,  twenty  years  after  his  death. ^  Two  years 
later  another  pioneer,  Samuel  Wilson,  found  peaches  growing  in  the 
Burnett  orchard.^ 

At  this  time  most  of  the  settlers  in  Berrien  County  had  a  few  seed- 
ling peach  trees. 

In  1831  Mr.  Brodiss,  who  lived  6  miles  northwest  of  Is'^iles,  '  brought 
seedling  peaches  by  the  canoe-load  down  the  St.  Joseph  River  to  peddle 
in  Saint  Joseph."^  In  1837  peaches  w^ere  also  brought  into  Saint  Josei)h 
from  the  Abbe  orchard,  said  to  have  been  set  with  improved  trees  sent 
from  Kochester,  N.  Y.^ 

In  Van  Bureu  County,  Dolphin  Morris  planted  peach  pits  as  early  as 
1830,  and  grew  trees  therefrom  which  lived  many  years.^  In  183G 
Isaac  Barnum  brought  peacb  pits  from  New  York  and  planted  in  Van 
Buren  County. 

According  to  Harrison  Hutchins,  of  Fenuville,  when  the  first  whites 
settled  in  the  lake-shore  region  of  Allegan  County,  about  1835,  they 
found  a  small  peach  orchard  on  Peach  Orchard  Point,  on  the  Kalama- 
zoo River,  supposed  to  have  been  planted  by  French  traders.^  The 
growing  of  seedling  peaches  by  the  settlers  themselves  began  here  soon 
after  1810.^ 

Mr.  Hutchins,  of  Allegan  County,  also  recalls  that  — 

Before  the  war  small  "hookers"  (boats)  sometimes  came  to  Sangatuck,  and  carried 
theuce  small  loads  of  peaches,  half  grown  and  fuzzy,  to  sell  in  the  more  northern 
markets  among  the  lumbermen.  Their  arrival  was  hailed  by  the  pioneers  as  a  good 
opportunity  to  dispose  of  a  few  surplus  peaches,  although  tliey  usually  carried  ap- 
ples.^ 

In  the  central  part  of  Allegan  County  Daniel  Foster  planted  a  small 
nursery  of  apple  and  peach  trees  soon  after  1844.  At  this  time  most  of 
the  settlers  in  that  part  of  Allegan  had  small  peach  orchards,  grown 
from  pits  of  their  own  planting.^  In  1849  an  orchard  of  budded  fruit 
was  planted  at  Monterey  and  continued  to  be  profitable  for  many  years." 

'  B.  C.  Hoyt  in  L.  J".  Merchant's  Catalogue  of  Fruit  Growers  and  Shqipers,  Saint 
Joseph,  1873;  also  History  of  Saint  Joseph,  by  D.  A.  Winslow,  1869;  both  cited  in 
History  of  Michifjan  Horticulture,  by  T.  T.  Lyon,  1857,  pp.  236  and  237. 

'^  Cat.  of  Fruit  Growers  and  Shippers.     Merchant.     1873.     Lyon,  p.  237. 

^History  of  Michigan  Horticiiltnre,  by  T.  T.  Lyon,  Lansing,  Mich.,  1887,  p.  268. 
Reprint  from  Report  of  Sec' y  of  Mich.  State  Hort.  Soc,  1887. 

*  History  of  Mich.  Horticulture,  by  T.  T.  Lyon,  1887,  p.  296. 

''Ibid.,  p.  297. 

^Ibid.,  p.  292. 


40  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON   PEACtt    YELLOWS. 

In  Ottawa  Coiiuty  iiiauy  orchards  were  planted  between  1836  and 
1855,  some  of  which  contained  peaches.  In  1839  Allen  Stoddard,  of 
Ottawa  County,  sold  peaches  in  Grand  Rapids,  from  trees  planted  by 
his  wife  in  1836,  around  stumps  in  the  clearings.'  And  as  early  as 
1858,  according  to  Frank  Hall,  George  Lovell,  of  Ottawa  County,  planted 
a  large  peach  orchard  for  commercial  purposes.^ 

In  1839,  at  Saint  Joseph,  in  the  garden  of  B.  0.  Hoyt,  grew  the  first 
peaches  ever  sent  from  Michigan  to  the  Chicago  market.  These  were 
seedlings.^  The  next  year  Capt.  Curtiss  Boughton,  of  Saint  Joseph, 
"bought  peaches  by  the  barrel  and  dry-goods  box;"  took  them  to  Chi- 
cago on  his  vessel,  and  sold  them  at  an  enormous  profit.  This  transac- 
tion induced  many  to  plant  peach  trees.^ 

In  1842  Mr.  Hoyt  procured  buds  of  imin'oved  varieties  from  William 
Prince,  of  Long  Island,  and  started  a  peach  nursery ;  but  no  improved 
fruit  was  shipped  from  Saint  Joseph  until  1844,  when  lie  sent  over  a 
few  baskets  of  Crawfords. 

After  1845  the  shipment  of  choice  fruit  began  to  increase,  begiuning  with  a  few 
hundred  baskets  of  3  pecks  each,  and  reaching  several  thousand  in  1855,  when  a 
great  many  Crawfords  were  shipped.^ 

In  1848  George  Parmelee,  of  Benton  Harbor,  who  afterwards  became 
a  celebrated  fruit-grower,  set  his  first  peach  orchard.  Tliis  contained 
between  2  and  3  acres  of  budded  trees.  He  continued  planting  i)each 
orchards  as  rapidly  as  possible,  until  he  had  nearly  90  acres.  In  1850 
he  set  his  first  Crawfords.  In  1873,  the  original  orchard  of  1848  was  yet 
standing  and  contained  "some  of  the  largest  and  finest  peach  trees  in 
the  country."* 

In  1849,  Captain  Boughton  set  out  130  budded  trees  in  St.  Joseph  Township,  south 
of  St.  Joseph  river.  In  1850  he  shipped  250  barrels  of  seedlings  and  150  barrels  of 
improved  varieties  twice  a  week.  The  shipments  for  the  year  were  bj'  his  vessel 
alone  not  less  than  10,000  baskets. ^ 

In  1857,  the  "  Cincinnati"  peach  orchard,  containing  65  acres,  was  set  in 
Berrien  County.  "From  this  time  the  fruit  interest  commenced  to 
grow  rapidly,  as  one  after  another  settled  here  and  went  into  the  busi- 
ness." '^ 

At  South  Haven,  Van  Buren  County,  "  during  or  soon  after  the  year 
1852,  S.  B.  Morehouse  and  Randolph  Densmore  planted  [peachj  orchards 
north  of  the  river.  *  *  *  Within  t*he  next  few  years  Mr.  James  L. 
Reed  planted  an  orchard     *     *     *     south  of  the  village."    In  1857  a 

^History  of  Mich.  RorUculture,  by  T.  T.  Lyon,  1887,  p.  327. 

2  Ihid.,  p.  329. 

^Catalogue  of  Fruit  Growers  and  Shippers,  by  L.  J.  Merchant,  Saint  Joseph,  1873, 
Lyon,  p.  237. 

*  History  of  Mieliiijan  Hurtieidfiire,  Lyon,  p.  23;  Catalogue  of  Fntil  Growers  and 
Shippers,  L.  J.  Merchant,  St.  Josejih,  1873,  Lyon,  p.  238. 

^Ihid.,  p.  238. 

^Catalogue  of  Fruit  Growers  and  Shippers,  L.J.  Merchant,  Saint  Joseph,  1873,  Lyon, 
p.  238. 


YELLOWS    IN    MICHIGAN.  41 

peacb  nursery  was  established.  lu  1859,  Aaron  Eaines  planted  from 
this  nursery  4  acres  of  peach  trees.  Soon  after  1861  John  Williams 
planted  a  peach  orchard.'    Others  planted  orchards  about  this  time. 

lu  1861  C.  Engle,  of  Paw  Paw,  Van  Buren  County,  planted  700  trees 
o**  Crawford's  Early  and  Snow's  Orange  on  an  elevated  ridge,  be  having 
noticed  as  early  as  1850  that  peach  trees  on  high  land  in  his  vicinity 
endured  the  winters  better.'^ 

Peach  growing  for  commercial  purposes  may  be  said  to  have  begun 
in  Michigan  iu  1848,  but  owing  to  lack  of  shipping  faciUties  it  did  not 
assume  proportions  at  all  comparable  to  eastern  interests  until  more 
than  a  decade  later.  Of  this  early  period  A.  S.  Dyckman,  of  South 
Haven,  writss: 

When  about  the  eud  of  the  last  half  century  Eleaziir  Morton,  George  Parnielee,  and 
Curtis  Boughton,  the  pioneers  of  Saint  Joseph  peach-culture,  set  their  respective  or- 
chards— an  airgregate  area  of  "25  acres — people  opened  their  eyes  in  auiazenieut  at  this 
exhibition  of  lunacy,  thinking  the  product  of  such  large  orchards  would  overstock  the 
market.^ 

These  references  concern  only  those  counties  in  which  peach  growing 
was  begun  earliest  and  has  always  held  a  prominent  place.  However, 
prior  to  1860,  according  to  Mr.  Lyon,^  peaches  had  been  grown  success- 
fully to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  at  least  fifteen  other  counties,  for 
periods  ranging  from  six  years  to  upwards  of  thirty  years. 
•  lu  all  of  these  counties  through  all  of  these  years,  from  1800  down, 
the  peach  grew  thriftily  and  bore  good  crops.  When  not  injured  oy 
borers  or  by  those  hard  winters  which  every  now  and  then  killed  or 
enfeebled  some  of  the  orchards,  the  peach  tree  was  healthy,  hard}-, 
and  long  lived. ^    There  was  no  yellows  in  any  part  of  the  State. 

This  disease,  known  for  so  long  in  the  East,  first  appeared  in  Mich- 
igan in  1860  or  1867,  in  the  extreme  southwestern  part  of  the  State,  in 
Berrien  County.  I  have  been  at  considerable  pains  to  verify  this  state- 
ment and  think  it  can  be  accepted  unqualifiedly,  or  with  only  that 
general  qualification  given  to  all  inductions  which  rest  on  a  multitude 
of  details,  some  of  which  have  not  been  examined.  In  this  case  abso- 
lute proof  would  be  nothing  less  than  concurrent  exact  testimony  con- 
cerning every  peach  tree  ever  grown  in  the  State,  but  such  rigid  proof 
no  one  demands  beyond  the  limits  of  the  exact  sciences.  The  belief 
that  yellows  did  not  appear  in  Michigan  until  1800  rests  upon  the 
positive  statements  of  hundreds  of  intelligent  peach-growers  and  on 
the  negative  evidence  of  all  the  rest.  Prior  to  1866  the  disease  had 
destroyed  thousands  of  acres  of  peach  orchards  in  the  Atlantic  coast 

1  History  of  Mich nj an  Horticulture,  T.  T.  Lyon,  1887,  p.  271. 

2/6id.,  p.  269. 

^Annual  Report  of  Michigan  State  Pomological  Society,  Lansing,  Mich.,  1873,  p.  481. 

*  History  of  Michigan  Horticulture,  Lansing,  Mich.,  1887. 

5  See  report  of  committee  to  Am.  Pom.  Society,  September,  1852  ;  The  Plough,  Loom, 
and  Anvil,  N.  Y.  and  Phila.,  Vol.  V,  Part  II,  p.  31) ;  A.  J.  Downing,  Fruits  and  Fruit 
Trees  of  America,  1st  edition  and  later  editions. 


42  SPECIAL   REPORT   ON   PEACH   YELLOWS. 

region  and  was  well  known  to  fruit-growers  as  the  worst  enemy  of  the 
peacli.  For  years  the  disease  had  been  discussed  and  described  in  local 
and  national  horticultural  gatherings ;  in  conversations  and  personal 
correspondence ;  in  newspapers,  journals,  and  books.  Exact  and  pretty 
full  accounts  of  it  had  also  been  given  in  standard  works  on  horticulture 
as  early  as  1828  by  William  Prince,  in  1833  by  Michael  Floy,  in  1845 
by  A.  J.  Downing,  and  later  by  others.  Some  of  the  IMichigan  peach- 
growers  had  seen  the  disease  itself  in  various  parts  of  the  East,  and  all 
the  more  intelligent  had  the  advantage  of  the  accumulated  knowledge 
and  experience  of  others  as  detailed  in  the  literature  of  a  half  century. 
Yet  nowhere  in  the  memory  of  individuals  now  living,  or  on  the  pages 
of  our  extensive  and  valuable  horticultural  literature,  is  there  registered 
any  recollection,  statement,  or  inference  tending  to  prove  that  the  dis- 
ease appeared  earlier  than  1866;^  nor  can  I  find  any  earlier  account, 
vague  or  clear,  of  any  other  disease  at  all  resembling  it.  In  fact,  a  ma- 
jority of  the  statements  are  that  the  disease  appeared  several  years  later 
than  18GG.  The  general  thrift  and  intelligence  of  the  growers,  coui)led 
with  the  fiict  that  many  were  already  on  the  watch  for  yellows,  renders 
it  exceedingly  improbable  that  this  disease  could  have  been  prcvsent 
and  unrecognized  for  any  great  length  of  time  in  a  country  devoted  to 
peaches. 

The  disease  first  appeared  in  a  circumscribed  area  near  the  village  of 
Saint  Joseph,  within  a  few  miles  of  Lake  Michigan  and  in  the  most 
iavored  peach  region  of  the  State.  According  to  W.  A.  Brown,  of  Ben- 
ton Harbor,  it  is  said  to  have  appeared  first  on  the  lake  shore  4  miles 
south  of  Saint  Joseph,  in  the  orchard  of  D.  In.  Brown,  in  trees  brought 
from  New  Jersey  and  planted  in  18G2  or  18G3.'^  It  extended  at  first 
slowly,  being  confined  to  the  vicinity  of  Benton  Harbor  for  several 
years.  Later  it  spread  more  and  more  rapidly,  until  by  1877-'78  it  was 
destructively  prevalent  in  nearly  every  orchard  in  the  county.  The 
fact  that  at  first  it  occurred  only  in  a  limited  area,  or  sporadically,  ac- 
counts for  the  various  dates  assigned  for  the  first  appearance  of  the  dis- 
ease, such  as  18G6,3 18G7-'G8,*  1868,^  18G9.«  It  is  certain  that  the  disease 
was  not  prevalent  enough  to  attract  general  attention  or  cause  well 

1  W.  K.  Higley,  in  Jm.  ^safuralist,  1881,  pp.  849  and  961,  states  tliat  yellows  ap- 
peared in  Benieu  County  in  1857.  This  date  is  possibly  a  misprint  for  1867.  He 
cites  no  authority,  and  so  many  misstatements  and  inaccuracies  occur  throughout  his 
paper  that  in  any  event  I  would  not  be  inclined  to  put  much  confideuce  in  this  date. 
The  date  1862,  given  iu  Annual  Report  Sec'y  Mich.  Stale  Pom.  Soc,  1878,  p.  'J54,  is  a 
typographical  error. 

-Letter  of  July  17,  1888. 

^Nowlen.  Ann.  Report  Sery  Mich.  State  Pom.  Soc,  1873,  p.  253,  and  W.  A.  Hrown 
letter  of  July  17,  1888. 

■•Cook  &  Bidwell.     Ann.  Report  See'i/  Mieh.  Stale  Pom.  Soc.,  1872,  p.  277. 

*  A.  K.  Nowleii.     Ann.  Report  Sec\i/  Mich.  Slate  Pom.  Soc,  187:>,  ]).  22, 

•'Winchester.  Condition  of  (irowintj  Croi)H.  Atujnst,  1S87,  Dep't  of  Agriculture, 
Washington,  D.  C,  p.  378. 


YELLOWS    IN    MICHIGAN.  43 

fouiuled  alarm  until  after  1870.  After  1875  few  new  orchards  were 
planted  and  tbe  old  ones  rapidly  disappeared  under  its  blighting  intlu- 
ence.  Even  young-  orchards  prematured  all  their  fruit  within  two  or 
three  years'  time,  and  rapidly  disappeared. 

The  progress  of  peach-growing  in  Berrien  County  from  18GG,  when 
yellows  first  appeared,  to  the  culmination  of  the  industry  in  1874  or  1875 
was  almost  phenomenal.  Careful  estimates  of  the  number  of  peach 
trees  in  the  fruit  region  of  this  county  were  made  by  private  enterprise 
from  time  to  time  with  the  following  results: 

Year.  No.  of  trees. 

1865 '-201,603 

1869 '385,530 

1872 -  *594,4()7 

In  1865,  a  canvass  showed  that  only  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  per- 
sons were  engaged  in  fruit-raising;  in  1872  the  number  had  increased 
to  over  efght  hundred.^ 

In  1871,  according  to  Charles  W.  Garfield,  who  then  first  saw  the 
Saint  Joseph  region,  the  peach  orchards  were  everywhere.^ 
1872,  Mr.  Clubb  says:^ 

Beuton  Harbor  has  excellent  shipping  facilities  and  the  country  lor  miles  around 
is  a  continuous  i^each  orchard,  interspersed  with  cherry,  plum,  i)ear,  and  apple 
orchards. 

In  January,  1873,  L.  J.  Merchant  writes:" 

Only  a  few  years  ago  this  section  of  country  was  generally  covered  with  heavy 
timber;  now  it  is  au  almost  unbroken  mass  of  fruit  trees  and  vines.  Tlien  there  were 
only  a  few  roughly  constructed  houses,  where  dwelt  the  hardy  pioneers;  now  the 
country  is  thickly  dotted  with  liaudsome  residences,  the  abodes  of  wealthy  fruit- 
growers, and  millions  of  dollars  are  invested  in  the  business  of  fruit  culture. 

In  1873,  J.  E.  Chamberlain  declared  the  number  of  peach  trees  in  the 
fruit  region  of  Berrien  County  to  be  not  less  than  (>0(),()0()  by  actual 
count.^  A.  S.  Dyckman  made  a  similar  statement  in  1874.*^  Both  ap 
l)arently  based  their  statements  on  the  careful  canvass  made  by  Mr. 
Merchant  in  1872. 

The  peach  shipments,  by  water,  from  Berrien  County  in  1877  were 
estimated  by  John  Whittlesey,  of  Saint  Joseph,  at  422,225  baskets. 
A  few  baskets  went  also  by  railroad." 

'  History  of  Michigan  Horticulture.     Lyon,  p.  241. 

•  "Accurate  canvass  of  eight  of  the  principal  fruit-growing  townships,"  by  L  J. 
Merchant,  I.  c,  p.  53.     Lyon,  p.  '240. 

'  Merchant,  Lyon,  p.  238. 

*»  Annual  Report  Sec.  Mich.  State  Hort.  Society,  1880,  Lansing,  Mich.,  p.  275. 

"^  A  Sketch  of  Northern  Michigan,  by  Henry  S.  Clubb.  Hulc-t  and  reynlations,  etc., 
of  the  great  Union  Fair  of  Michigan.    Grand  Haven,  1872. 

"  Catalogue  of  Fruit  Growers  ami  Shippers.     Saint  Joseph,  1873.     Lyon,  p.  238. 

''Annual  Beport  Sec.  of  Mich.  State  Pom.  Society,  1873,  p.  2G. 

**  History  of  Michigan  Horticulture,  Lyon,  p.  48. 

•^Ihiil.,  p.  241. 


44  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

From  about  1870  we  begin  to  meet  frequeut  references  to  the  ravages 
of  yellows. 

In  1871,  by  invitation  of  the  Berrie^i  County  Horticultural  Associa- 
tion, Dr.  R.  0.  Kedzie  visited  Benton  Harbor  and  examined  many  trees 
having  all  the  characteristics  of  yellows.  ^ 

In  1872  "L.T."  states  that  yellows  has  commenced  its  destructive 
work  at  Saint  Joseph,  Mich.,  where  he  has  a  twenty-acre  orchard.^ 

In  April,  1873,  L.  Collins,  of  Saint  Josejih,  says  : 

We  have  the  disease  called  yellows  among  our  trees  and  tliat  to  an  alarming  ex- 
tent.    I  Lave  lost  one  orchard  of  800  trees  entirely  by  the  disease.-' 

In  1872,  Messrs.  Cook  and  Bidwell*  found  yellows  more  or  less  *'  in 
every  direction  from  Benton  Harbor."  It  extended  northeast  12  miles, 
as  far  as  Watervliet  and  Paw  Paw  Lake,  in  the  extreme  north  part  of 
tlie  county.     They  state  that : 

The  disease  has  probably  existed  in  the  vicinity  five  years.  Tiie  exact  time  of  its 
advent  is  notlcnown.  The  people  have  tried  to  believe  that  it  was  not  the  yellows,  but 
tlie  result  of  ijeculiar  soil  or  seasons.  But  the  fact  can  no  longer  be  concealed.  They 
Lave  "the  yellows  "  in  its  most  aggravated  form. 

In  April,  1873,  A.  R.  Nowleu,  of  Benton  Harbor,  says:^ 

I  think  the  disease  made  its  appearance  five  years  ago  (^18t)«j  for  the  first,  time, 
and  m  various  orchards  several  miles  distant  from  each  other  iiimultuueously. 

In  1873  a  committee,  consisting  of  Prof.  J.  C.  Holmes,  H.  G.  Wells, 
and  S.  O.  Knapp,  were  appointed  by  the  State  Pomological  Society  to 
make  a  report  upon  yellows  in  Michigan.  During  that  year  these  gen- 
tlemen spent  nine  days,  July  30  to  August  7,  in  southwestern  Michigan 
searching  for  the  disease.  They  found  it  only  at  Saint  Joseph,  Benton 
Harbor,  and  South  Haven.  No  diseased  trees  were  seen  north  of  South 
Haven,  nor  many  anywhere;  but  the  trip  was  too  hasty  to  permit  of 
thorough  examination.  They  talked  with  many  peach-growers  and 
concluded  that  the  disease  was  not  widely  prevalent.^  Among  others 
the  following  well-known  i)each-growers  reported  to  this  committee  that 
yellows  was  not  present  in  their  locality:  E.  D.  Lay,  Ypsilanti;  T.  T. 
Lyon,  Plymouth;  I.  S.  Linderman,  Casco;  Henry  S.  Clubb,  Grand 
Haven:  C.  .1.  Dietrich,  Grand  Rapids;  D.  R.  Waters,  Spring  Lake; 
S.  B.  Peck,  Muskegon;  J.  D.  Husted,  Lowell;  S.  L.  Morris,  Holland; 
and  C.  Engle,  Paw  Paw. 


'Yellows  in  Peaches,  by  Dr.  R.  C.  Kedzie.  liejtort  of  Secrelanj  of  Mich.  State  Pom. 
Soriefji,  1872,  pp.  4G4-83. 

2  The  Gardeners'  Motifhhi,  Philadelphia,  1872,  p.  118. 

'  Annual  Report  Sec.  Mich.  State  Pom,  Societjj,  1873,  p.  23. 

*Ibid.,  1872,  p.  277. 

^  Ibid.,  1873,  p.  22.  On  p.  253  of  the  same  report  Mr.  Nowleu  is  credited  with  the 
statement  that  yellows  first  appeared  at  Benton  Harbor  in  1866. 

*•  Report  on  peach  yellows.  Annual  Report  Sec'y  Mich.  State  Pom.  Society,  1673, 
pp.  11-37. 


YELLOWS    IN    MICHIGAN.  45 

Four  years  later,  in  The  Anmi;il  Ifeport  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Michi- 
gan State  Pomolooical  Society,'  it  is  stated  that  at  Eeutou  Harbor  and 
Saint  Joseph,  "  they  are  giving  up  peaches  on  account  of  the  yellows." 
These  vilhiges  are  both  on  Lake  Michigan  and  only  about  3  miles  apart. 
The  same  year  a  Benton  Harbor  corresj^ondent  of  The  Cultivator  and 
Country  Gentleman^  says:  "We  have  lost  most  of  our  trees  in  this 
region  by  yellows."  The  same  year  the  same  journaP  quoted  from  T. 
T.  Lyon:  "This  violent  and  contagious  disease  has  nearly  destroyed 
the  peach  orchards  at  Saint  Joseph." 

In  1880,  says  Charles  W.  Garfield,  there  were  scarcely  any  peach 
orchards  left  at  Saint  J  oseph.  The  growers  attributed  their  destruction 
to  the  yellows.^ 

In  1878,  W.  A.  Brown,  of  Benton  Harbor,  writes  :^ 

The  disease  is  supposed  to  have  beeu  introduced  iu  this  viciuity  about  the  year  1866, 
by  means  of  trees  imported  from  New  Jersey,  which  had  been  grown  from  the  buds 
of  infected  trees.  But  few  trees  were  so  aft'ected,  and  it  was  several  years  later  when 
the  disease  iu  the  vicinity  of  Benton  Harbor  first  assumed  a  contagious  type.  A  feu- 
trees  in  the  large  orchards  south  of  Saint  Josej»h  showed  signs  of  yellows,  but  the 
character  of  the  disease  being  known,  such  trees  were  immediately  destroyed,  and 
many  tine  crops  were  grown  before  the  trees  were  all  aflected.  The  area  of  country 
infected  was  comparatively  small  until  the  past  two  seasons  [1877  and  1878],  when 
the  disease  has  assumed  a  more  virulent  character,  and  has  spread  over  all  of  Berrieu 
County,  excepting  a  small  portion  iu  the  extreme  southern  part. 

In  1887,  A.  O.  Winchester,  of  Saint  Joseph,  writes:*' 

We  do  not  know  where  it  came  from  or  how  introduced.  »  *  *  The  disease  first 
appeared  [first  destructively]  in  the  center  of  the  peach  belt  eighteen  years  ago,  and 
gradually  spread  north  and  south  along  the  lake  shore  until  there  was  not  a  healthy 
orchard  left. 

This  is  not  an  overdrawn  picture.  No  one  who  knows  the  character 
of  the  authorities  cited  will  doubt  the  general  correctness  of  the  fore- 
going statements.  Indeed,  were  further  j)roof  necessary,  a  great  mass 
of  additional  testimony  might  be  brought  forward.  The  peach  industry 
was  literally  swept  out  of  Berrien  County  by  yellows  within  one  decade. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  this.  From  being  the  foremost  peach  county 
in  Michigan,  with  an  acreage  more  than  equal  to  that  of  all  the  others 
combined,  it  became  ninth  in  order,  and  could  boast  of  only  503  acres. 
In  other  words,  with  a  prospect  of  an  expanse  in  peach  growing  which 
would  be  limited  only  by  market  facilities  and  the  ordinary  accidents 
of  culture,  the  yellows  appeared  in  destructive  form,  and  the  industry 
gradually  fell  away  to  about  one-twelfth  of  its  former  proportions. 

1 1877,  p.  402. 

2  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1877,  p.  72. 

3  Page  765. 

*  Annual  lieport  Secij  Mich.  Slate  ITort.  Society,  1880,  p.  275. 
^Annual  Report  Scc'i/  Mich.  State  Pom.  Societi/,  1878,  p.  254. 

^Condition  of  Growing  Crops,  August,  1887,  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  Washington, D.  C, 
p.  378. 


46  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

The  exact  figures  for  1874  can  not  be  obtained,  but  the  following  state- 
ment is  approximately  correct : 

Peach  iiidiistrif  in  Berrien  Counti/,  J/(c7i.' 


Tear. 

Acres. 

Number 
of  trees. 

1874 

G.OOO 
503 

034,  0  0 
54,  827 

1884 

From  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Benton  Harbor  and  Saint  Josepli, 
peach  growing  disappeared  almost  completely.  In  1884,  the  townships 
of  Benton  and  Saint  Joseph  contained  only  47  acres  of  peach  orchard, 
and  the  entire  north  part  of  the  county,  including  these  two  townships 
and  seven  others,  had  an  aggregate  of  barely  210  acres.  Even  these 
figures  do  not  tell  the  whole  truth.  In  the  townships  of  Benton  and 
Saint  Joseph  the  hearing  trees  numbered  at  this  time  onJi/  757,  and  in 
the  entire  nine  counties,  aggregating  about  225  square  miles,  they  num- 
bered only  6,GG8.2 

Many  peach  orchards  have  been  planted  in  Berrien  County  since 
1884,  but  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  these  Avill  e.^ca])e  the  disease 
which  raged  in  the  last  decade.     At  present  it  looks  as  if  they  might. 

T.  T.  Lyon,  of  South  Haven,  states  that  the  disease  ap[)e.ireil  in  the 
central  part  of  Van  liuren  County  somewhat  earlier  than  at  South  Ha- 
ven, following,  as  he  thinks,  the  line  of  the  railroad  from  Berrien  County, 
northeast,^  i.  e.,  being  disseminated  from  nurseries. 

Yellows  first  appeared  upon  the  lake  shore,  at  South  Haven,  in  18G9, 
in  the  orchard  of  Eossiter  Hoppin.  Although  it  finally  destroyed  most 
of  the  trees  in  that  orchard  and  appeared  in  many  others,  it  did  not 
spread  rapidly  at  first.  Messrs.  Holmes,  Wells,  and  Knapp  (L  c.)  found 
the  disease  there  in  1873  in  three  orchards  only,  and  but  to  a  very  lim- 
ited extent,  i.  e.,  one  orchard  contained  1  tree;  one,  2  trees;  and  one,  4 
or  5  trees. 

In  1873  a  committee  was  also  appointed  by  the  South  Haven  Pomo- 
logical  Society  to  inquire  into  the  existence  of  yellows  at  South  Haven. 
This  committee,  consisting  of  H.  E.  Bidwell,  H.  Linderman,  and  John 

'  These  fiymes  are  based  iu  part  on  Mr.  Merchant's  canvafis,  in  part  on  the  State 
census  of  1874  and  1884.  The  Michigan  census  report  of  1874  does  not  give  the  num- 
ber of  acres  of  peach  orchard  by  itself,  but  only  the  combined  acreage  of  apples, 
peaches,  pears,  cherries,  and  plums,  which  was  14,001  acres,  cherries,  plums,  and 
pears  being  cultivated  to  a  small  extent  only,  as  shown  by  the  bushels  of  fruit  pro- 
duced in  1872  and  1873.  I  have  no  doubt  that  8,000  acres  of  peaches  would  be  nearer 
the  actual  acreage  of  1874,  but  give  the  smaller  number  to  be  entirely  safe.  The  num- 
ber of  trees  lor  each  year  is  assumed  to  have  been  one  hundred  and  nine  times  the 
number  of  acres,  one  hundred  and  nine  being  the  usual  number  of  trees  set  on  an 
acre.  The  actual  number  of  hcarin;/  frees  given  in  the  census  report  of  1884  is  only 
26,419. 

-Census  of  Michigan,  1884,  Vol.11,  Table  Vll,  p.  223. 

^  History  of  Michigan  Horticulture,  Lyon,  1887,  p.  272. 


YELLOWS    IN    MICHIGAN.  47 

Williams,  reported  July  3,  1874,  tbat,  with  the  consent  and  assistance 
of  the  owners,  they  had  removed  a  few  cases  of  the  disease  from  three 
orchards,  and  that  "some  traces  of  it"  yet  remained.  On  August  22, 
1874,  the  same  committee  reported  again  as  follows: 

Your  commitlee,  who  were  appoiuted  to  examine  the  peaches  in  this  vicinity  to  see 
if  auy  yellows  coiiUt  he  fomid,  and  if  so  to  have  thim  removed,  heg  leave  to  report: 
That  where  traces  of  it  were  found  one  aud  two  years  ago,  aud  then  removed,  uoue 
now  can  he  fonnd;  and  where  new  trees  tii'e  set  in  their  places  they  are  growing 
finely,  and  to  all  appearances  healthy.  In  one  case  two  years  ago  [187<5]  the  owner 
tried  to  cut  it  out  of  the  tree  hy  cutting  off  the  affected  limb,  hut  last  season  he  fouud 
that  and  three  adjoining  trees  affected.  These  were  carefully  removed,  and  uo  traces 
of  the  disease  can  now  be  found  in  his  orchard.  A  similar  case  was  fonnd  last  season, 
where  two  peaches  were  fouud  diseased  on  the  end  of  a  limb,  which  limb  was  re- 
moved as  soon  as  the  peaches  were  discovered  to  be  diseased.  On  a  recent  examina- 
tion this  tree  was  found  to  be  covered  with  diseased  peaches,  and  several  other  trees 
in  the  neighborhood  were  likewise  found  affected  in  whole  or  in  part,  which  have  all 
been  removed.^ 

South  Haven  peach-growers  knew  of  the  existence  of  yellows  in  Ber- 
rien County,  that  village  being  only  about  20  miles  north  of  Benton 
Harbor.  They  were  therefore  on  the  lookout  for  its  appearance  in  their 
own  orchards,  the  nearness  of  the  danger  making  them  specially  watch- 
ful. Under  such  conditions  yellows  could  not  have  existed  long  with- 
out detection,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  it  existed  at  all  until 
1869.2  It  did  not  become  general  until  considerably  later.  Finally, 
however,  it  destroyed  many  trees  and  some  whole  orchards,  the  Hoppiu 
orchard,  among  others. 

The  condition  of  peach-growing  at  South  Haven  prior  to  1800  has 
already  been  noted.  During  the  next  ten  or  twelve  years  many  peach 
orchards  were  planted.  In  1804  A.  S.  Dyckman,  one  of  the  large 
growers,  shipped  000  baskets;  in  1872  he  shipped  12,000  baskets.  After 
1870  the  planting  of  peach  orchards  increased  with  special  rapidity, 
owing  in  part,  it  may  be  presumed,  to  discouragements  in  Western  Ber- 
rien arising  from  yellows,  but  chiefly  to  the  increased  facilities  for  ship- 
ment due  to  the  dredging  of  the  harbor  and  to  the  building  of  a  railroad.^ 

The  disease  appeared  first  in  a  few  trees  and  in  a  few  orchards  only, 
gradually  extending  to  others.  According  to  Mr.  Lyon<  there  was  not 
much  yellows  at  South  Haven  "until  after  the  severe  winter  of 
1874-'75,  when  about  5  per  cent,  of  the  trees  were  fouud  diseased  and 

'  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Mich.  State  Pom.  Soc,  1874,  p.  49<i. 

2A.  S.  Dyckman  aud  other  peach-growers,  whom  I  met  at  South  Haven  in  April, 
1888,  all  agreed  that  the  yellows  first  appeared  in  the  Hoppiu  orchard.  They  also 
agreed  that  it  was  prior  to  1872,  but  could  not  give  the  exact  date.  By  them  I  was 
referred  to  Charles  Gibson,  as  one  who  had  had  much  to  do  with  this  orchard  and  who 
would  be  likely  to  remember  the  year.  Mr.  Gibson  says  the  yellows  first  appeared  at 
South  Haven  in  18G9,  and  first  in  this  orchard.  Letter  of  May  21,  1888.  The  trees  set 
in  this  orchard  were  procured  at  Saint  Joseph,  Mich.,  and  yellows  appeared  in  them 
when  they  were  three  or  four  years  old.— [Mr.  Gibson,  letter  of  November  30,  1888. 

^  History  of  Mich.  IJort.,  Lyon,  p.  272. 

*  Annual  Report  of  the  Scc'y  of  the  Mich.  Stata  Sort.  Soc.,  1880,  p.  274. 


48  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

taken  out.    Afterwards,  until  this  year  [1880J,  there  was  very  little  of 
the  disease  manifest.    This  year  the  disease  shows  an  increase." 
In  1878  A.  G.  Gulley,  of  South  Haven,  writes  r^ 

At  least  5,000  trees  have  beeu  destroyed  by  this  disease  the  past  seasou  [1378]  in 
this  couuty  alone. 

In  1882  Secretary  J.  G.  Ramsdell,  of  South  Haven,  writes  i^ 

That  dreaded  scouro;e  of  the  peach-grower,  yellows,  has  made  slow  but  marked 
progress  during  the  year  in  this  locality. 

In  1883  Joseph  Lannin,  of  South  Haven,  writes  :^ 

We  think  we  are  holding  the  disease  in  check  by  i^roniptlj'  destroying  the  trees  on 
the  first  manifestation  of  the  disease.  If,  however,  the  yellows  continues  to  spread, 
it  will  be  only  a  question  of  years  when  peach-growing  will  cease  on  the  lake  shore. 

In  1888,  Mr.  Lannin  told  me  he  had  lost  his  entire  orchard.  His 
neighbors,  however,  think  it  might  have  been  saved  by  a  prompt  and 
full  compliance  with  the  law. 

The  yellows  is  still  present  at  South  Haven,  but  is  no  longer  a  source 
of  alarm. 

Speaking  of  the  advent  of  yellows,  Mr.  Lyon  says:^ 

The  peach  interest  at  that  time  was  already  extensive  and  the  trees  were  free  from 
disease. 

Other  South  Haven  growers^  testify  to  the  previous  freedom  of  the 
peach  tree  from  disease.  We  may  therefore  conclude  that  peaches  were 
cultivated  at  South  Haven  for  a  period  of  at  least  sixteen  years,  1852-'CI>, 
unmolested  by  yellows. 

Yellows  firt>t  appeared  at  Lawton,  in  southeastern  Van  Buren,  in  1878. 
This  village  is  30  miles  east  of  Benton  Harbor  and  25  miles  southeast 
of  South  Haven.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  peach-growers  being  forewarned, 
were  on  the  watch  for  the  disease  and  presumably  detected  it  very  soon 
after  its  ajipearance. 

Peach-growing  for  commercial  purposes  began  at  Lawton  in  ISGO, 
when  N.  H.  Bitley  planted  500  tiees.     These  trees  bore  their  first  crop 
in  1800,  soon  after  which  several  other  orcliards  were  planted.    Later 
occurred  a  very  general  planting,  so  that  in   1878,  when  yellows  ap 
lieared,  there  were  about  150,000  [)each  trees  in  the  vicinity  of  Lawton.*^ 

Hon.  C.  D.  Lawton,  of  Lawton,  writes  as  follows  :'' 

The  first  appearance  of  the  yellows  here  was  in  1878.  I  think  it  had  appeared  in 
Mr.  Engle's  orchard  near  Paw  Paw  [4  or  5  miles  distant]  the  year  previous  to  1878, 
but  that  was  the  season  we  first  recognized  the  disease  here.  Peach  trees  have 
grown  here  since  the  first  settlement  of  the  region.     The  first  orchard  for  market 

1  Annual  Eeport  of  Ike  Sec'y  of  the  Mich.  State  Pom.  Soc,  1878,  pp.  '249-253. 
'  Antiital  Eeport  of  the  Sec'y  of  the  Mich.  State  Hort.  Soc,  18«<2,  p.  306. 
^  Ibid.,  1884,  p.  11. 
■•Letter  of  January  10,  1888. 

^Dyckman,  Lannin,  Gulley,  and  several  others,  whom  I  met  at  South  Haven  in 
1888. 
'^History  of  Mich.  Hort.,  Lyon,  p.  269. 
'Letter  of  January  24,  1888. 


YELLOWS    IN    MICHIGAN.  .  49 

— 500  trees — was  set  by  Mr.  N.  H.  Bitleyiu  1858,  and  it  survived  aud  bore  finely 
for  twenty  years,  until  destroyed  by  severe  winters  and  the  yellows.  No  finer, 
healthier  peach  trees  or  peach  orchards  exist  auj'whero  than  were  found  here  up  to  a 
few  years  ago.  We  have  had  several  very  severe  winters,  1884,  '65,  '86,  during  which 
many  trees  were  injured  or  destroyed.  This,  added  to  the  ravages  of  the  yellows,  has 
caused  our  peach  orciiards  to  look  somewhat  ragged. 

In  the  season  of  ISbl  there  were  shipped  from  this  station  upwards  of  100,000 
baskets  of  peaches,  in  1883  perhaps  as  many,  and  possibly  as  many  in  1887.' 

Up  to  about  1875  there  were  not  many  shippers.  There  were  but  few  orchards. 
Still  there  were  some  that  were  proving  profitable,  and  the  success  of  these  few  in- 
duced others  to  set  out  trees.  The  yellows  seems  to  have  gradually  spread  here  from 
Benton  Harbor.  We  heard  of  its  appearance  in  the  west  part  of  the  county  a  few 
years  before  we  discovered  it  here,  and  were  looking  out  for  it,  anticipating  its  ar- 
rival. 

At  Lawtou  peacli-gTOwing  has  uot  been  abaudoned,  althongli  eiitire 
orcliards  liavebeeu  miued. 

Yellows  does  not  appear  to  have  worked  as  disastrously  iu  VauBiiren 
County  as  in  Berrien,  owing  possibly  to  the  timely  aud  rather  strict 
enforcement  of  the  yellows  law.  This  phase  of  the  problem  will  be  con- 
sidered later,  under  "  restrictive  legislation."  In  1884  the  State  census 
credited  Van  Buren  County  with  2,181  acres  of  peach  orchard,  a  small 
acreage,  considering  its  favorable  situation,  but  enough  to  sbow  that 
peaches  can  still  be  grown  in  spite  of  yellows.  In  1888  Mr.  Lyon  says 
of  South  Haven,  the  best  peach  region  iu  the  county,  "  the  acreage 
planted  is  largely  increasing  from  year  to  year.'"- 

At  Douglas,  Allegan  County,  yellows  appeared  in  1873  or  1871:,  simul- 
taneously iu  at  least  two  difierent  orchards  several  miles  apart.  This 
village  is  17  miles  north  of  South  Haven  aud  a  few  miles  only  from  the 
lake  shore.  Rev.  J.  F.  Taylor,  for  six  years  yellows  commissioner  of 
Saugatuck  Township  aud  for  twenty  years  a  resident,  writes  as  follows 
concerning  the  appearance  of  the  disease  in  that  locality.  ^ 

Yellows  appeared  here  first  iu  1873  or  1874.  In  an  orchard  south  of  mine  about  2 
miles  [orchard  of  Eobert  Linn]  one  tree  iiroduced  some  beautiful  red  fruit.  No  one 
know  the  cause  of  the  changed  color.  This  orchard  contained  about  300  trees. 
After  this  tree  had  borne  such  fruit  a  year  or  two  it  was  pronounced  diseased  with 
yellows.  The  man  refused  to  cut  it  down,  and  in  about  eight  years  all  of  his  trees 
(300)  were  dead  by  the  effects  of  this  contagious  disease.  The  same  year  (1873  or 
1874),  2  miles  east  of  my  orchard,  another  man  [D.  W.  Wiley]'  found  three  or  four 
trees  in  his  orchard  of  6,000  trees  which  had  the  yellows.  He  did  not  know  the  ap- 
pearance of  affected  fruit  and  went  to  Saint  Joseph  to  learn  what  effect  the  yellows 
had  on  tree  and  fruit.  He  cut  and  dug  out  these  trees  and  planted  new  ones  iu  their 
places,  which  grew  and  bore  [healthy]  fruit.  Thisorchard  has  suftered  but  little  from 
yellows. 

'  Michigan  peach  baskets  hold  from  one-fourth  to  one-fifth  bushel.  The  honest 
ones  hold  one-fourth  bushel. 

-  Letter  of  January  13,  1888. 

3  Letter  of  January  25,  1838. 

■•Mr.  Wiley  himself  says  yellows  first  appeared  iu  his  orchard  in  1874  in  six  trees 
of  Crawford's  Earl}-,  all  heavily  laden  with  fruit. 

11215— No.  9 i 


50  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Yellows  does  uot  appear  to  have  spread  rapidly  at  first.  Harrison 
Hutchins,  of  a  ueigbboriug  village,  himself  a  wellkuowu  peach-grower, 
writes :  ^ 

Peach  yellows  made  its  appearauce  ou  tlie  lake  sboie  [12  to  14  miles  uortli  of  South 
Haven]  about  ten  years  ago,  and  one  or  two  years  later  [1878  or  l->79]  about  Fenu- 
ville,  6^  miles  east  of  the  lake. 

Peaches  were  grown  in  the  lake  shore  townships  from  the  earliest 
settlement  (/.  c);  commercial  orchards  were  planted  in  1862,  and  by 
1872  the  bnsiness  of  peach  growing  had  become  general.^  Two  years 
later,  1874,  Henry  S.  Clubb  made  a  careful  canvass  and  found  that  in 
two  townships  only,  Ganges  and  Saugatuck,  the  number  of  peach  trees 
in  orchard  exceeded  62,000.^  The  name  of  each  grower  is  given  and 
the  number  of  acres  or  the  number  of  trees.  There  are  many  comments 
on  the  healthy  appearance  of  individual  orchards,  and  no  mention  is 
made  of  yellows.'' 

Jn  other  words,  peaches  were  grown  in  western  Allegan  in  constantly 
increasing  numbers,  unmolested  by  yellows  for  a  period  of  not  less  than 
thirty  years,  even  on  the  assumption  that  the  disease  appeared  there 
considerably  earlier  than  the  earliest  date  assigned. 

G.  H.  La  Fleur,  a  nurseryman  at  Millgrove,  says  that  yellows  first 
appeared  in  the  township  of  Casco'^  in  or  about  the  year  1874.  "  From 
that  point  it  gradually  spread  until  it  reached  Ganges  and  Saugatuck. 
I  first  saw  it  at  Fennville  in  1876."  Three  years  after  its  appearance  at 
Fennville,  yellows  appeared  iu  Allegan  Township'^  on  a  favorable  ele- 
vation, in  an  orchard  growing  ou  some  of  the  best  soil  in  the  county.*^ 

Mr.  La  Fleur  adds  : 

I  thiuk  the  disease  prevails  iu  nearly  every  town  iu  the  county  where  peach  trees 
are  growing,  although  some  parts  are  aluiost  exempt  as  yet. 

In  answer  to  inquiries  concerning  the  extent  of  injury  done  to  or- 
chards about  Fennville,  Mr.  Hutchins  writes  :" 

I  think  one-tenth  of  all  beaviug  trees  has  been  affected  Avith  yellows;  uot  nearly 
as  large  a  per  cent  near  the  lake.  I  am  li  miles  west  of  Fennville,  and  out  of  5,000 
bearing  trees  1  have  lost  nearly  5  per  cent. 

^Letter  of  January  27, 1888. 

-Hutchius,  cited  iu  Hisionj  of  Michigan  HordcuUtirc,]}.  297;  Clubb,   1.  c. 

^The  SaiKjatiuk  and  Ganges  Fndl  Ilegion,  etc.,  by  Henry  S.  Clubb.  Published  by 
the  Lake  Shore  Agricultural  and  Pomological  Society.  Douglas,  Allegan  County, 
Mich.,  1875,  pp.  1-20. 

■'The  number  of  X'cach  trees  iu  Ganges  and  Saugatuck  ten  years  later  (1884)  was 
237,391.     (Census  of  Michujan,  1884,  Vol.  IL,  p.  220.) 

^  The  townships  of  Casco,  Ganges,  and  Saugatuck  front  on  Lake  Michigan  for  a 
distauce  of  18  miles.  They  are  the  most  important  peach  townships  in  Allegan  County. 
Casco  is  contiguous  to  South  Haven,  in  Van  Buren  County ;  Ganges  joins  Casco  on 
the  north  ;  Saugatuck  joins  Gauges  ou  the  north.  Allegan  Township  is  due  east  of 
Ganges,  separated  by  two  townships  each  G  miles  broad;  it  is  about  15  miles  .south 
east  of  Feuuville. 

•*  Letter  of  February  6,  1888. 

7  Letter  of  January  27,  1888. 


YELLOWS    IN    MICHIGAN.  51 

To  tlie  questioD  :  Has  peach  growing  beeu  discouraged  to  any  great 
extent  by  yellows "?  be  replies  : 

1  thiuk  not.     lu  some  few  iustances,  jierhaps,  but  uot  generally. 

To  similar  inquiries  respecting  Saugatuck  Township,  Rev.  J.  F.  Tay- 
lor makes  a  similar  reply. 

In  western  Allegan,  as  a  whole,  peach  growing  is  on  the  increase. 
According  to  Harrison  Hutchiiis,^  almost  every  farmer  has  a  peach  or- 
chard, varying  in  number  of  trees  from  a  few  hundred  to  5,000  or  even 
10,000. 

Eespectiug  the  eastern  part  of  Allegan  County,  G.  H.  La  Fleur  states 
that  yellows  has  reduced  the  number  of  trees  50  per  cent.,  although 
many  are  planted  each  year.^ 

The  State  census  of  1881  shows  that  peach  growing  is  fairly  prosper- 
ous in  Allegan  County,  the  acreage  there  given  being  more  than  double 
that  of  any  other  county,  *.  e.,  8,367  acres,  corresponding  to  about  900,000 
trees. 

In  remoter  parts  of  Michigan  peach  yellows  appeared  at  dates  much 
later  than  1869.  Peaches  have  been  grown  in  Ottawa  and  Kent  Coun- 
ties for  thirty  years  or  more.  In  1881  Ottawa  was  credited  with  984 
acres,  containing  84,223  bearing  trees;  and  Kent  was  credited  with 
3,362  acres,  containing  161,065  bearing  trees.  JSTevertheless  yellows  did 
not  appear  in  either  county  until  within  the  last  eight  or  ten  years.  In 
the  vicinity  of  Grand  Eapids  the  disease  did  not  appear  earlier  than 
1883,  although  peaches  have  been  grown  since  1850  and  to  a  very  con- 
siderable extent  since  1875.  Farther  north,  in  the  Grand  Traverse  re- 
gion, where  peaches  have  been  grown  to  a  limited  extent  since  1805,  it 
is  said  that  the  disease  has  not  yet  appeared.  On  the  eastern  side  of 
the  State,  it  was  not  present  at  Plymouth,  Wayne  County,  in  1873,^ 
and  has  not  been  reported  from  Oakland  County,  where  in  1884  were 
1,093  acres,  containing  44,320  bearing  trees. 

In  the  vicinity  of  Ann  Arbor,  peach  trees  were  planted  as  early  as 
1842,  and  peach-growing  has  beeu  a  considerable  industry  since  1875. 
In  1884  the  number  of  bearing  trees  in  the  city  and  township  was  59,592 
(446  acres),  and  many  have  been  planted  since  that  date,  yet  the  orchards 
have  never  suffered  from  yellows.  Indeed,  I  can  not  find  tliat  a  single 
case  has  ever  appeared.     I  have  myself  examined  many  trees. 

In  view  of  some  inquiries  to  be  made  later  resijecting  climate  as  a 
cause  of  peach  yellows.,  it  will  be  necessary  to  note  briefly  the  condi- 
tions under  which  peaches  are  grown  in  Michigan,  particularly  as  these 
conditions  vary  somewhat  from  those  found  in  the  Chesapeake  and 
Delaware  region.  As  a  whole  the  climate  of  Michigan  is  too  severe  for 
the  peach.    Bitter  experience  has  shown  that  the  excessive  cold  and  the 

•  History  of  Michigan  Horticulture.     Lyon,  p.  297. 

2  Letter  of  February  6,  1888, 

3T.  T.  Lyon,  Report  of  the  Sccretari)  of  the  Miehi<jan  Slate  PomoJogical  Society,  1873, 
p.  27. 


52  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON   PEACH   YELLOWS. 

rapid  temperature  changes  of  some  of  the  Michigan  winters  are  sufifi- 
cieut  to  kill  entire  orchards.  So  much  depends,  however,  upon  location 
that  no  general  rule  can  be  laid  down,  other  than  that  in  the  interior 
and  on  the  east  side  of  the  State  the  peach  does  not  winter  well  north 
of  latitude  43°.  South  of  this,  in  favored  localities,  the  peach  has  passed 
through  the  severest  winters  in  safety. 

What  is  known  as  the  "peach  belt"  is  a  narrow  strip  of  sandy  and 
loamy  land  in  the  extreme  southwestern  part  of  the  State,  bordering 
on  Lake  Michigan.  There  peaches  were  lirst  planted  for  commercial 
purposes;  there  their  cultivation  has  been  most  uniformly  successful ; 
and  there  it  still  involves  the  largest  amount  of  capital.  The  reason 
for  this,  aside  from  proximity  to  a  great  market,  lies  in  the  nearness 
to  a  large  body  of  water.  The  prevailing  winter  and  spring  winds  be- 
ing from  points  between  northwest  and  southwest  must  pass  over  Lake 
Michigan  on  their  way  to  the  peach  orchards,  and  during  this  passage 
they  lose,  much  of  their  severity  by  contact  with  the  warmer  water.  In 
winter  the  temperature  never  falls  as  low  along  the  lake  as  in  the  in- 
terior or  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  State,  and  the  extremes  of  tempera- 
ture are  neither  so  sudden  nor  so  great.  In  the  spring  the  lake  water 
is  cooler  than  the  air,  and  the  winds  which  then  blow  over  it  lose  some 
of  their  warmth,  and  the  vegetation  in  the  orchards  is  retarded  until 
there  is  little  danger  of  frost.  The  equalizing  influence  of  this  great 
body  of  water  is  very  considerable.  In  southwestern  Michigan  peaches 
can  be  grown  almost  as  successfully  as  in  Delaware,  and  near  the  lake 
can  be  grown  to  some  extent  even  as  far  north  as  latitude  io^  30'.  On 
the  contrary,  in  northern  Illinois  and  in  Wisconsin,  on  the  west  side  of 
the  lake  and  exposed  to  land  winds,  peaches  are  not  grown  in  open 
orchards  at  all  north  of  latitude  42°,  and  very  little  north  of  latitude 
40°.  At  Madison,  Wis.,  latitude  43°,  peaches-will  not  ordinarily  live 
through  a  single  winter.  The  same  may  be  said  of  all  that  part  of 
Wisconsin  due  west  of  the  great  peach  orchards  of  Allegan  County, 
Mich.  What  is  true  of  Wisconsin  and  nortliern  Illinois  is  said  to  be 
true  also  of  the  northern  half  of  Indiana. 

In  recent  years  it  has  been  found  that  peaches  can  be  grown  anywhere 
in  central  and  western  Michigan  south  of  latitude  43°,  if  the  right  lo- 
cations are  selected.  These  are  hills  and  table-lauds.  Trees  on  hill- 
tops pass  safely  through  winters  which  destroy  whole  orchards  in  val- 
leys and  bottom  lands.  This  fact  is  now  so  well  understood  that  away 
from  the  lake  it  is  rare  to  find  an  orchard  on  low  land.  The  orchards 
at  Ann  Arbor,  Lawton,  Paw  Paw,  and  Grand  Eapids  are  all  on  the 
highest  hills. 

To  express  the  same  fact  somewhat  differently,  we  may  say  that  while 
the  peach  region  ^ar  excellencelies  in  the  southwest  along  Lake  Michigan, 
peaches  may  also  be  grown  more  or  less  successfully  south  of  an  irregular 
line  running  northwest  from  Lake  Erie  to  Grand  River,  and  thence  along 
the  lake  to  near  the  northern  end  of  the  southern  peninsula.    The  chief 


EARLY    PEACH    GROWING    IN    DELAWARE.  53 

peach  counties  outside  of  the  most  favored  region  are  Monroe,  Kala- 
mazoo, Jackson,  Washtenaw,  Ionia,  Kent,  Muskegon,  and  Grand  Trav- 
erse, in  some  of  which  yellows  has  not  yet  appeared,  aud  in  none  of 
which  has  it  been  present  for  any  great  length  of  time. 

To  the  question,  ^'  Do  peach  trees  continue  to  be  planted  in  Michigan  f 
there  is  no  official  reply  later  than  that  given  in  the  State  census  for 
1884.  The  number  of  acres  of  peach  orchards  in  Michigan  at  that  time 
was  24.502,  containing  1,428,209  bearing  trees.  Assuming  that  there 
were  one  hundred  and  nine  times  as  many  trees  as  acres,  the  number  of 
trees  not  in  bearing,  i.  e.,  planted  recently,  would  be  1,242,509.  Aside 
from  this  evidence  we  know  that  peach-growing  has  rapidly  increased 
of  late  in  many  places,  and  as  it  has  encountered  no  new  or  unusual 
obstacles  since  1884,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  what  was  then  true  of  the 
State  as  a  whole  continues  to  be  true.  In  other  words,  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  one-half  of  all  the  peach  trees  in  Michigan  have  been 
set  witliin  the  last  four  or  five  years,  and  probably  as  many  as  one-fourth 
within  the  last  two  years. 

Summary. — So  far  as  its  present  distribution  is  concerned,  we  may 
infer  that  the  disease  occurs,  or  is  likely  to  occur,  anywhere  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, 'Hew  York,  Ontario,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Michigan. 

It  is  also  certain  that  the  disease  did  not  appear  in  tlie  West  until  at 
Ifeast  a  half  century  after  it  had  ravaged  Eastern  orchards  nor  until 
many  years  after  the  introduction  of  the  peach. 

3.  SouTHWESTWARD  MOVEMENT. — Although  not  in  strict  sequence  it 
seemed  best  to  treat  of  the  southern  movement  of  yellows  in  Xew  Jersey 
along  with  its  appearance  in  other  j)arts  of  that  State,  so  that  there 
now  remains  for  consideration  only  the  southwestward  extension  of  the 
disease  into  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  States  farther  to  the 
south  and  west. 

Delaware. — The  annals  of  j)each-growing  in  Delaware  are  not  com- 
plete enough  to  form  a  perfect  record  from  the  earliest  settlements  down. 
Some  mention,  however,  has  already  been  made  of  early  peach-growing 
in  this  region.  Orchards  of  seedling  peaches,  some  of  them  of  large 
extent,  w^ere  grown  in  all  parts  of  Delaware  from  the  earliest  settle- 
ments. These  early  orchards  appear  to  have  been  entirely  free  from 
disease.  Even  at  the  beginning  of  the  i)resent  century  the  orchards 
grew  vigorously  and  reached  a  great  age.^  From  this  we  may  infer  that 
yellows  was  unknown,  save  possibly  in  the  extreme  north  end  of  the 
State.  In  fact,  the  peach  appears  to  have  been  cultivated  throughout 
Delaware  with  almost  uniform  success  until  a  time  within  the  mem- 
ory of  men  now  living,  a  time  concerning  which  I  have  succeeded  in 
obtaining  reasonably  exact  information,  though  not  without  much  in- 
quiry. The  trees  of  the  early  period  were  all  natural  fruit,  i.  e.,  unbud- 
ded.    The  orchards  of  to-day  are  all  choice  budded  varieties. 

Peach  growing  on  a  large  scale  for  commercial  purposes,  other  than 

1  See  page  20. 


54  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

the  Dianufactnre  of  brandy,  began  in  northern  Delaware  in  1833,  and 
for  the  needs  of  this  report  it  will  be  sufficient  to  make  this  date  the 
starting  point  of  our  inquiry.  For  reasons  which  will  be  apparent  later, 
I  sball  also  first  consider  upper  Delaware,  then  middle,  then  lower,  cor- 
responding respectively  to  the  counties  of  New  Castle,  Kent,  and  Sussex. 

New  Castle. — The  soil  of  Xew  Castle  County  contains  a  larger  propor- 
tion of  clay  than  that  of  Kent  and  Sussex,  and  the  land  is  more  rolling, 
although  not  stony  and  not  hilly,  even  in  the  extreme  north  part.  The 
soil,  of  course,  varies  somewhat  in  different  parts  of  the  county ;  there  is 
some  rather  stiff  clay,  a  good  deal  of  loam,  and  some  light  sand,  es- 
pecially near  Delaware  Eiver.  The  subsoil  is  clay.  The  original  tim- 
ber was  a  good  growth  of  white  and  red  oak,  chestnut,  sassafras,  tulip 
tree,  etc.  The  land  has  been  under  cultivation  for  periods  ranging  from 
forty  to  one  hundred  years,  or  more.  It  is  in  the  main  a  fertile  soil,  but 
some  of  it  has  been  very  heavily  cropped.  The  present  state  of  farm- 
iug,  as  regard* stock  raising,  use  of  fertilizers,  etc.,  will  compare  favora- 
bly with  that  of  other  thrifty  sections  of  the  United  States.  Wheat 
and  Indian  corn  were  formerly  the  staple  crops,  and  with  the  decline  of 
the  peach  industry  these  have  again  become  of  prime  importance. 

To  Isaac  Reeves  belongs  the  honor  of  having  demonstrated  that 
I)eaches  might  profitably  take  the  place  of  wheat  and  other  ordinary 
farui  crops.  Since  his  day,  Delaware  from  one  end  to  the  other  has 
been  very  literally  one  succession  of  great  orchards  and  gardens.  Mr. 
Reeves,  a  native  of  New  Jersey,  but  then  a  resident  of  Philadelphia, 
induced  Jacob  Ridgeway,  a  wealthy  citizen  of  that  place,  to  embark 
with  him  in  the  new  enterprise;  and  in  the  spring  of  1832,  1  mile  from 
Delaware  City,  near  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Canal,  on  a  farm 
belonging  to  Mr.  Ridgeway,  they  set  out  20  acres  of  budded  peach 
trees,  with  a  view  to  supplying  the  Philadelphia  market.  This  was 
the  first  large  market  orchard  ever  set  in  New  Castle  County.  To  this 
plantation  they  added  40  acres  in  1833,  20  acres  in  1835,  and  20  acres 
in  1836,  making  a  total  of  110  acres.  An  additional  20  acres  was  set  out 
in  1817,  but  not  until  all  of  those  previously  set  were  about  to  be  re- 
moved. 

The  experiment  of  Messrs.  Reeves  and  Ridgeway  x^roved  successful 
beyond  expectation.  The  trees  were  healthy,  grew  vigorously,  and 
after  a  few  years  returned  bountiful  crops ;  so  that  one  year  the  gross 
receipts  from  sales  of  fruit  was  $16,000,  peaches  then  bringing  from 
$1.25  to  $3  per  basket  of  3  pecks. 

•Peach  growing  on  such  an  extensive  and  successful  scale  could  not 
fail  to  attract  general  attention,  and  have  many  competitors.  In  1836? 
on  the  Union  Farm,  on  Delaware  River,  midway  between  Wilming- 
ton and  New  Castle,  James  W.  Thompson  and  Manuel  Eyre  set  140  acres 
of  peach  trees.  In  1835,  or  thereabouts,  Mnj.  Phillip  Reybold  set  his 
first  orchard  on  the  mellow,  loamy  soil  near  Delaware  City.  In  1838  he 
set  another  large  orchard,  and  continued  to  set  orchards  in  that  vicinity 


EARLY    PEACH    GROWING    IN   DELAWARE.  55 

uutii  184:2,  when  be  bad  12,000  trees,  covering  120  acres.  lu  tbis  busi- 
ness be  was  followed,  between  tbe  years  1837  and  181:0,  by  bis  four  sons, 
tbe  Clark  Brotbers,  and  many  otbers,  all  of  wboin  appear  to  bave  found 
tbe  peacb  industry  more  profitable  tban  wbeat  growing  or  any  otber 
business  in  wbicb  tbe}'  were  engaged.  Concerning  Delaware  City,  Dr. 
F.  S.  Dunlap,  to  wbom  I  am  indebted  for  many  interesting  statements, 
writes  as  follows  :  "In  1810  one-balf  of  tbis  section  was  covered  witb 
magnificent  peacb  orcbards,  tbe  most  of  wbicb  continued  in  successful 
bearing  until  1848  to  1850."  James  W.  Tbompson,  wbom  A.  J.  Down- 
ing styled  "one  of  tbe  most  intelligent  orcbardists  in  tbe  country,"  de- 
clares, in  Marcb,  1S4G,  tbat  "  from  2,500  to  3,000  acres  of  land  in  'New 
Castle  County  are  iilauted  witb  and  successfully  cultivated  in  peacbes, 
making  Delaware,  tbougb  tbe  smallest  of  tbe  States,  tbe  largest  pro- 
ducer of  tbis  fruit."  Tbis  appears  to  bave  been  a  very  moderate  estimate, 
for  in  1845,  according  to  James  Pedder,  ^  Major  Reybold  and  his  sons 
alone  bad  117,720  trees,  covering  1,090  acres,  from  wbicb,  during  August 
of  tbat  year,  tbere  were  sbipped  03,344  baskets  of  fruit.  The  fact  that 
Phillip  Reybold,  jr.,  then  bad  from  00,000  to  80,000  young  peach  trees 
in  his  nursery  is  also  an  indication  of  tbe  extent  to  which  peaches  were 
being  planted.  In  1848  tbe  peach  crop  of  Delaware,  chiefly  from  New 
Castle,  was  estimated  at  500,000  baskets,  of  which  tbe  Reybolds  fur- 
nished about  one-fourth.' 

During  some  of  these  years  tbe  product  of  tbe  peacb  orchards  was 
far  in  excess  of  tbe  facilities  for  shipment,  and  even  of  the  demand,  so 
tbat  thousands  of  baskets  remained  unpicked,  and  otber  thousands  were 
thrown  away  upon  reaching  market. 

Tbe  great  body  of  the  orcbards  at  this  time  appears  to  have  been  in 
the  vicinity  of  Delaware  River,  in  tbe  Hundreds  of  I^ew  Castle,  Red 
Lion,  and  upper  Saint  George,  on  a  strip  of  gently  rolling,  sandy,  and 
loamy  land,  10  or  15  miles  in  length  by  half  as  many  in  breadth.  It  is 
said  tbat  a  considerable  portion  of  tbis  land  bad  been  considered  unfit 
for  agricultural  uses,  and  at  tbe  beginning  of  the  century  was  an  unin- 
closed  wilderness,  Major  Reybold  having  jDurcbased  a  great  tract  of  it 
at  a  nominal  price.^ 

The  trees  were  set  from  20  to  30  feet  apart  and  were  tilled  in  corn 
the  first  tbree  years,  after  wbicb  the  orcbards  were  kept  fallow.  Tbe 
trees  were  examined  twice  a  year  for  borers  and  in  some  orcbards  it 
was  also  the  custom  to  thin  out  the  fruit  while  it  was  small  that  wha^ 
remained  might  grow  the  better.^ 

In  1837  The  Wilmington  Journal  gives  some  account  of  tbe  success 
of  Mr.  Ridgeway's  orchards,  which  would  that  year,  it  was  estimated, 

'Quoted  from  The  Boston  Cultivator  iu  Annual  Eeport  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents 
(Agriculture),  1845,  pp.  954,  955. 

^Annual  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  {Agriculture),  1848,  pp.  164  and  465. 

■'William  C.  Lodge,  I.  c. 

*  James  W.  Thompson,  7.  c.  ;  The  New  Am.  Or  char  (list,  hj  William  Kenrick,  8th 
ed.,  1848,  Boston,  p.  204. 


56  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

yield  a  profit  of  $20,000,  and  concludes  as  follows:  "We  add  to  this 
statement  that  there  is  no  part  of  our  country  which  is  more  favorable 
to  the  production  of  this  delicious  fruit  than  the  vicinity  of  Delaware 
City,  and  the  whole  district  of  country  lying  along  the  western  shore  of 
the  Delaware  and  extending  from  Christiana  down  to  Bombay  Hook,"^ 
i.  e.,  the  whole  eastern  side  of  ISTew  Castle  County.  This  statement  was 
then  undoubtedly  true  and  would  still  be  true  but  for  peach  yellows. 
Indeed,  from  the  days  of  Campanius  down  to  a  very  recent  date  the 
peach  ajipears  to  have  flourished  along  the  Delaware  Eiver  in  full 
vigor,  even  when  neglected. 

As  nearl}^  as  can  be  determined  now  yellows  first  appeared  on  the 
Eidgeway  farm  in  1842,  i.  e.,  ten  years  after  the  Urst  orchard  was  planted.^ 
It  did  not  first  appear  in  the  orchard  planted  in  1832,  nor  yet  in  the 
ones  planted  in  1833  and  1835,  but  in  the  orchard  planted  in  183G.  This 
orchard  showed  yellows  six  years  after  planting  and  was  w^orthless  at 
the  end  often  years.  The  orchard  iilanted  in  1835  showed  yellows  in 
nine  years,  *.  e.,  in  1814.  By  1845,  both  orchards  were  badly  diseased, 
especially  the  younger  one,  and  both  were  removed  in  1847.  The 
orchards  of  1832  and  1833  were  also  removed  at  this  time.  The  orchard 
of  1832  remained  in  good  bearing  longer  than  any  of  the  rest.  Col.  James 
Bo  wen,  an  orchard  foreman  for  Isaac  Eeeves,  states  that  for  a  period 
of  thirteen  years  this  orchard  never  failed  to  produce  a  fair  crop,  and 
that  a  few  of  the  trees  left  standing  continued  to  produce  good  fruit 
until  1852.  According  to  Colonel  Bowen  and  Clement  Eeeves,  a  son  of 
Isaac  Eeeves,  neither  this  orchard  nor  the  one  set  in  1833  ever  showed 
yellows.  This  statement,  however,  may  not  be  strictly  true,  for  after 
1844  a  number  of  trees  in  both  orchards  are  said  to  have  prematured 
from  the  effect  of  borers,  bad  pruning,  and  neglect,  and  some  of  these 
may  have  had  yellows. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  facts  in  connection  with  the  history  of 
these  orchards  is  that  the  fifth  and  last  orcliard,  set  in  1847  when  yel- 
lows was  very  prevalent,  '^  went  out"  more  quickly  than  any  of  the 
others.  This  orchard  "  bore  but  three  crops;  the  mitl^Ue  crop,  at  four 
years  of  age,  was  a  large  and  fine  crop.  The  third  crop  [1852]  was 
neither  abundant  nor  of  good  quality.  The  next  year  the  trees  were  all 
either  premature  or  yellow."  Clement  Eeeves,  who  set  this  orchard  and 
who  now  lives  at  Delaware  City,  says  it  was  thrifty  and  apparently 
healthy  until  it  had  been  i^lanted  four  years.  The  yellows  made  such 
quick  work  that  it  was  dug  out  in  1855,  eight  years  after  it  was  planted.^ 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  nature  of  this  malady.  William 
Eeybold  and  other  peach-growers,  who  were  eye  witnesses,  unite  in 
stating  that  the  disease  which  destroyed  the  orchards  was  yellows,  and 

1  Quoted  in  Ruffiu's  Farmers'  Register,  Petersbnigb,  Va.,  1837,  p.  459. 

"  In  1843,  according  to  John  Delano,  Isaac  Reeves's  peach  trees  were  dying  of  yel- 
lows by  the  score  "  mangre  all  his  care,  cultivation,  and  circumspection."  The  Cul- 
iivator,  Alljany,  1S43,  p.  167. 

=5  F.  S.  Diiulap,  M.  D.    Letter  of  January  17,  1888. 


YELLOWS    IN    DELAWARE.  57 

say  that  any  one  familiar  with  i^each-growiug  cau  hardly  mistake  this 
disease.    Dr.  Dnnlap  writes : 

When  the  disease  first  made  its  appearance  hero  I  was  but  a  lad  and  too  young  to 
take  much  interest  in  peach  culture,  yet  I  well  remember  the  sad  havoc  it  made  in 
our  orchards. 

He  has  no  doubt  as  to  its  being  identical  with  the  yellows  now  pres- 
ent ill  Delaware.  Other  testimony  is  not  wanting  as  to  the  existence 
of  yellows  in  this  region  at  that  time. 

Indeed,  according  to  Dr.  Black^  yellows  has  been  known  on  the 
Delaware  and  Chesapeake  peninsula  "  since  the  war  of  1812,  and  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  introduced  from  Pennsylvania,  by  carrying  down 
improved  trees,  but  it  never  amounted  to  a  scourge  until  large  orchards 
began  to  be  cultivated  irom  budded  fruit." 

In  1816,  James  AV.  Thompson,  of  Wilmington,  complains  of  it  as  a 
"  constitutional,  consumptive,  or  marasmatic  disease  *  *  *  by  far 
the  most  destructive  enemy  of  the  peach  tree."  Mr.  T.  adds  that  peach 
trees  live  only  from  nine  to  twelve  years  even  when  properly  cared  for 
and  protected.^ 

Of  fruit  diseases  in  the  neighborhood  of  Delaware  City  in  1850,  ac- 
cording to  John  C.  Clark,^  "  the  blight  or  yellows  in  peaches  is  the  most 
troublesome.  Excepting  this  the  above-named  fruits  are  but  little  liable 
to  disease." 

"  Bj^lSSS,"  says  Dr.  Dunlap,  of  Delaware  City,  "  the  yellows  had  taken 
possession  of  nearly  all  the  orchards,  and  peach  culture  in  this  section 
was  at  an  end."  Manj^  of  the  peach  growers  had,  however,  begun  again 
on  farms  in  Kent  and  Cecil,  Maryland.'* 

In  1858,  one  of  the  editors  of  The  Country  Gentleman  visited  New 
Castle  County  and  commented  on  peach  growing  as  follows  :^ 

We  came  to  the  residence  of  William  Reybokl,  Esq.  [son  of  Maj.  Phillip  Reybold], 
not  far  from  Delaware  City,  who  here  occupies  a  fine  estate  of  460  acres,  and  has 
another  farm  within  a  short  distance  of  37.5  in  addition.  His  orchards  formerly  sent 
five,  six,  and  seven  thousand  baskets  of  peaches  a  night  to  New  York  for  a  period  of 
about  six  weeks,  employing  several  steam-boats  for  the  purpose  ;  and  70  acres — 30  of 
them  in  three-year  old  and  40  in  four-year  old  trees — one  year  netted  their  owner  the 
handsome  figure  of  |12,000.  But  the  days  of  the  peach  in  all  these  coasts  seem  to  be 
numbered ;  their  glory  and  profit  have  departed.  Some  mysterious  disease  [yellows] 
has  for  five  years  past  [since  1853  or  1854  according  to  this]  kept  them  declining,  and 
for  the  last  two  they  have  not  paid.  The  ax  has  been  laid  at  the  root  of  their  once 
fruitful  and  money-bringing  boughs,  and  trunk,  and  branch,  and  twig,  they  are  now 
being  cut  down  and  hewed  to  pieces  for  fire-wood. 

1  The  Cultivation  of  the  Peach  and  Pear  on  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Peninsula, 
by  John  J.  Black,  M.  D.,  Wilmington,  Del.,  1886,  p.  81. 

'^  The  Southern  P/axto-,  reprinted  in  The  Bortieiiltiirist,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1846,  pp.  36 
and  37. 

3  Quoted  by  L.  P.  Bush,  chairman  of  fruit  committee  for  Delaware.  Proceedings 
of  the  Am.  Pom.  Soc.,  18.56,  p.  9d. 

■*  Letter  of  January  17,  1888. 

^The  Country  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  July  22,  1858,  p.  42. 


58  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELL0W8. 

Is  it  not  to  the  reflective  poaiologist  a  nielaucboly  fate  1  to  the  lover  of  fruit  a  sad 
misfortuue  ?  Newly  iilauted  orchards  on  land  where  a  peach  tree  never  grew  seem 
to  fare  no  better ;  they  sicken,  lose  all  their  thrift,  and  a^iparently  die  by  inches. 

The  writer  knew  the  symptoms  of  yellows,  but  on  the  day  of  his  visit 
it  was  raiiiiug-  so  that  apparently  he  did  not  enter  the  orchards.  On 
page  286  of  the  same  volume,  in  answer  to  a  correspondent,  who  asks  if 
this  wide-spread  peach  disease  is  yellows,  the  reply  is : 

The  disease  in  Delaware  may  be  yellows,  yet,  as  we  do  not  know  all  the  symptoms 
as  developed  there,  we  can  not  S])eak  positively. 

Fortunately  we  are  now  able  to  speak  without  reservation.  The  dis- 
ease was  yellows,  and  it  very  soon  put  an  end  to  peach  growing  in  the 
upper  part  of  New  Castle  County. 

In  18G2,  at  Port  Penn,  a  few  miles  south  of  Delaware  City,  all  the 
orchards  were  out,  and  the  young  trees  were  not  yet  in  bearing.'  These 
young  orchards  suffered  the  fate  of  the  older  ones,  and  there  are  now 
no  orchards  in  tliat  vicinity. 

In  1870  [writes  Dr.  Dnnlap]  there  were  very  few  if  any  peach  trees  nearer  us  than 
Mount  Pleasant  on  the  Delaware  Railroad;  the  mass  of  the  orchards  in  this  county 
Avas  between  Middletown  and  Smyrna.- 

The  present  condition  is  substantially  what  it  was  in  1870.  Dr  Dun- 
lap  writes :  ^ 

Many  of  our  farmers  after  a  lapse  of  twenty  years  have  set  out  new  orchards,  "which 
seem  to  thrive  and  do  well  until  they  are  between  two  and  four  years  old,  when  the 
yellows  invariably  makes  its  a^ipearance,  and  the  trees  soon  die.  The  most  of  the 
tirst  orchards  in  this  section  continued  in  fair  to  good  bearing  for  a  period  of  from 
twenty  to  twenty-live  years,  and  some  even  longer;  whereas  trees  recently  planted 
seldom  live  more  than  from  three  to  five  years,  though  planted  in  ground  never 
occupied  by  a  peach  orchard. 

My  own  observations  in  1888  in  the  vicinity  of  Townsend,  Middle- 
town,  McDonough,  and  Odessa  confirm  this  statement.  The  young 
orchards  very  soon  premature  their  fruit  and  die,  even  on  laud  never 
before  set  to  peach  trees. 

With  the  decadence  of  peach  growing  in  the  vicinity  of  Delaware 
City  there  was  a  large  increase  of  orchards  in  the  southern  part  of  the 
county,  with  a  correspondiug  rise  in  land  values.  The  first  Odessa  or- 
chards were  planted  in  1810.  Many  orchards  were  set  towards  the  end 
of  the  fifth  and  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixth  decade.  In  186G  there 
were  hundreds  of  acres  of  healthy  peach  orchards,  in  the  vicinity  of 
Odessa,  McDonough,  and  Middletown,  and  real  estate  changed  hands  at 
fabulous  prices.  In  the  sj)ring  of  that  year,  near  Middletown,  one  man 
offered  his  peach  orchard  for  $1,500  ;  afterwards  refused  $5,000  for  it, 
and  finally  sold  his  crop  for  $2  a  basket,  clearing,  $9,000.^ 

In  1867,  according  to  Henry  T.  Williams,  the  peach  shipments  from 
Delaware  by  railroad  were  1,108,000  baskets,  and  by  water  750,000, 

'  E.  B.  Pennington,  letter  of  January  25,  1888. 
'-Letter  of  March  19,  1888. 
.3  Letter  of  January  17,  1888. 
*  The  Cultivator  and  Couninj  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  March,  1867,  p.  209, 


PEACH    GROWING    IN    DELAWARE.  69 

makiuj>-  a  total  of  l,8oS,U00.i  A  very  considerable  part  of  this  total, 
probably  over  one-half,  came  from  southern  New  Gastle. 

Mr.  E.  C.  Fennimore,  who  had  a  landing  on  Delaware  Eiver,  was 
especially  successful.  A  McDonongh  correspondent  of  The  Cultivator 
and  Country  Gentleman  -  says  that  Mr.  Fennimore's  i)each  orchard 
"  has  not  failed  once  since  it  came  into  bearing  seven  years  ago  with 
10,000  trees  ;  it  now  numbers  9,000."^  The  surrounding  orchards,  how- 
ever, never  did  so  well. 

The  conditions  of  peach  growing  twenty-eight  years  ago  in  the  central 
and  southern  parts  of  New  Castle  County  are  very  pleasantly  set  forth 
in  a  popular  article  by  William  C.  Lodge.*  The  following  paragraphs 
afitbrd  a  striking  contrast  to  present  conditions,  and  are  not  greatly  ex- 
aggerated, judging  by  statements  I  have  received  from  many  eye-wit- 
nesses, and  by  what  I  have  myself  seen  more  recently  in  Kent  County : 

Proceeding  to  Middletowu  [from  Delaware  City],  we  pass  through  a  coutiuuous 
orchard  or  a  succession  of  orchards  that  seem  to  be  one  vast  whole,  the  trees  every- 
where beudiug  or  broken  with  their  loads  of  high-colored  fruit.  Middletown  is  on 
the  Delaware  Railroad,  and  is  the  central  station  in  New  Castle  County.  On  the  track 
there  is  a  train  of  15  cars  waiting  for  the  day's  pickings. "*  Each  car  carries  about  500 
baskets,  and  although  early  in  the  morning,  the  peach  teams  are  already  coming  in 
from  all  directions.     '♦     *     * 

From  Middletown  to  Townsend  [4  or  5  miles  south],  where  another  peach-train  is 
waiting.  The  whole  available  country  is  planted  with  peach  trees."  The  ordinary 
farm  crops  appear  to  be  neglected,  while  the  labor  is  wholly  devoted  to  gathering 
aud  marketing  the  fruit.  In  the  alluvial  table  lands  of  this  neighborhood  the  peach 
ree  finds  all  the^  elements  for  the  production  of  fruit.  It  is  new  soil,  and  the  trees 
are  exempt  from  disease  and  from  such  insects  as  render  peach  growing  precarious 
in  other  sections  equally  favored  by  climate. 

The  orchardist  is  generally  satisfied  with  a  yield  of  three  or  four  baskets  of  market- 
able fruit  from  each  tree ;  but  here  the  average  is  from  seven  to  eight  baskets  from 
mature  trees,  and  many  orchards  give  even  more. 

The  orchards  increase  in  size  as  we  proceed  southward.  Here  [between  Middle- 
town  and  Townsend,  apparently]  they  are  composed  of  from  ten  thousand  to  one 
hundred  thousand  trees  each. 

By  a  slight  detour  [  north]  we  strike  the  Delaware  aud  Chesapeake  Canal,  the  north- 
ern outlet  for  the  products  of  the  eastern  shore  counties  of  Maryland,  as  well  as  for 
the  farms  along  its  course  through  Delaware.  The  plantations  along  the  canal  and 
those  extending  several  tiers  back,  are  devoted  to  peaches.  There  is  a  landing  on 
every  farm,  besides  the  jiublic  landings  where  the  roads  cross  the  canal.  The  boats 
that  carry  the  fruit  are  drawn  by  four  horses  or  mules  and  have  capacities  for  from 
live  to  seven  thousand  baskets. 

'  The  Cultivator  and  Country  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  July,  1868,  p.  14. 

•^Ibid.,  January,  1869,  p.  79. 

3  Yellows  first  appeared  in  this  orchard  in  1865  or  1866,  in  spots,  and  gradually  be- 
came worse.  In  1369  Mr.  Fennimore  had  about  4,000  baskets  of  premature  ^leaches 
out  of  34,000.  Many  trees  were  dug  out,  early  in  the  seventies,  on  account  of  yellows, 
and  the  whole  orchard  was  removed  in  1874. 

^  Peach  Culture  in  Delaware,  Harper''8  Magazine,  N.  Y.,  1870,  pp.  511-518. 

®Iu  1875,  56  car-loads  of  peaches  were  shipped  from  Middletown  in  one  day. 
For  condition  of  peach  orchards  about  Townsend,  Del.,  in  1888,  gee  Photo.  XII. 


60  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

About  25,000  baskets  -ire  daily  carried  by  the  caual-boats  in  the  flush  of  the  season. 

Along  the  tow-palh,  in  our  driveof  half  a  dozen  miles,  we  notice  that  the  landings 
are  covered  with  peaches  and  the  attendant  teams,  with  the  parties  waiting  to  put 
the  fruit  on  board.  This  is  the  universal  harvest,  and  brings  money  to  the  purse  of 
every  one  willing  to  work,  plenty  to  every  home,  and  good  cheer  to  every  board. 
To  the  family  of  the  planter  it  means  many  luxuries  in  the  shape  of  pianos,  new  car- 
riages, and  perhaps  an  additional  farm  or  two. 

In  1870,  when  there  were  no  longer  any  peaches  at  Delaware  City, 
single  growers  in  the  vicinity  of  Middletown  numbered  their  orchards 
by  hundreds  of  acres.^  Ex- Governor  John  P.  Cochran,  who  now  has 
no  peach  trees,  writes  that  at  this  time  he  had  over  80,000.^  He  saw 
the  trouble  coming  and  abandoned  the  business. 

In  August,  1871,  Charles  Downing,  George  Thurbur,  P.  T.  Quiuu, 
William  Parry,  Eandolph  Peters,  and  Howard  M.  Jenkins,  of  the  Dela- 
ware Tribune,  visited  this  region  and  examined  tlie  peach  orchards.^ 
They  found  J.  B.  Fennimore  to  be  one  of  the  largest  growers.  At  Mid- 
dletown were  many  large  peach  farms ;  that  of  the  late  Cantwell  Clark 
contained  280  acres  of  peach  orchard ;  that  of  J.  T.  Ellisou,  100  acres ; 
the  four  farms  of  B.  T.  Biggs,  about  350  acres,  i.  e.,  35,000  trees.  "The 
orchards  near  Middletown  are  in  fine  condition,  the  land  being  heavier 
and  trees  more  productive  than  at  points  farther  south."  This  condi- 
tion of  things  appears  to  have  extended  to  the  extreme  southern  end  of 
the  county,  for  mention  is  made  of  the  peach  farm  of  Samuel  Townsend, 
near  Smyrna,  containing  400  acres,  from  which  he  was  then  shipping 
three  car-loads  of  fruit  per  day. 

The  transcript  from  Mr.  Fennimore's  note- book,  18Gl-'74,  given  later, 
also  shows  very  clearly  how  free  from  disease  and  how  profitable  were 
the  peach  orchards  of  this  region  during  that  decade.  Middletown  was 
then  the  great  shipping  center  of  the  peach  country.  Buyers  flocked 
thither  from  all  quarters  and  the  peach-growers  became  wealthy,  adding 
orchard  to  orchard  and  farm  to  farm.  In  1872  the  shipments  by  car 
from  this  place  were  450,000  baskets ;  in  1873  they  were  300,000  bas- 
kets. In  1873  Mr.  Seerick  Shallcross  alone  shipped  to  New  York 
125,000  baskets  of  fruit  from  an  orchard  said  to  be  the  largest  in  the 
world.  This  covered  over  1,000  acres,  contained  more  than  100,000 
trees,  and  was  valued  at  $150,000.^  Other  growers  had  nearly  as  many 
trees. 

Peach  culture  reached  its  maximum  in  this  part  of  New  Castle  about 
1875,  since  which  time  it  has  steadil}^  declined.  In  1888,  I  found  no 
orchards  of  any  consequence  between  Middletown  and  McDonough,  in 
the  fine  country  formerl}'  so  thickly  planted.  Large  farms  once  almost 
entirely  covered  by  orchards  now  contain  not  a  tree.     Hon.  Jobn  J. 

1  William  Parry,  in  Proc.  Pa.  Fruit  Ch'owers'  Soc,  1871,  p.  47. 

2  Letter  of  March  29,  1888. 

3  Horticulture  on  the  Delaware  Peninsula.  The  Rorticultarist,  N.Y.,  1871,  pp.  306-308, 
*  The  Horticttllurist,  N.  Y.,  1874,  p.  287. 


YELLOWS    IN   DELAWARE.  '61 

Black,  of  New  Castle,  aud  E.  E.  Cocbran,  of  Middletowu,  agree  iu  es- 
timating the  total  number  of  peacb  trees  ia  New  Castle  iu  1870  at 
1,000,000  aud  iu  1875  at  1,750,000.^  H.  H.  Appleton,  of  Odessa,  also 
estimates  the  number  of  bearing  trees  iu  1870  at  1,000,000,  equal  to 
10,000  acres.^  Governor  B.  T.  Biggs  "would  suppose  we  had  iu  New 
Castle  County  in  1870  about  500,000  peacb  trees.  Most  of  the  orchards 
were  in  our  county,  between  Duck  Creek  Hundred  and  Middletown.'" 

As  at  Delaware  City,  so  at  Middletowu,  the  "  glory  and  profit "  of 
peacb  growing  have  departed,  and  under  the  same  blighting  influence. 
The  history  of  the  first  appearance  of  yellows,  of  its  progress,  aud  of 
the  gradual  disappearance  of  the  orchards,  is  not  essentially  different 
from  that  already  given  in  some  detail  for  Delaware  City  and  for  Saint 
Joseph,  Mich.  There  was  first  a  more  or  less  general  complaint  of 
great  losses  from  prematurely  ripened  fruit.  This  was  followed  by  the 
appearance  of  disease  in  the  tree  itself.  The  growers  sought  to  ex- 
plain the  "  prematuring  "  in  every  way  but  tbe  right  one ;  they  hoped 
it  would  disappear  next  year,  and  could  not  very  generally  bring  them- 
selves  to  accept  tbe  unwelcome  truth.  Some  persons  dug  out  tbe  af- 
fected orchards  at  once,  believing  tbe  disease  to  be  communicable;  but 
most  only  later  when  it  bad  become  evident  that  tbe  unfruitful,  mori- 
bund trees  were  valuable  only  for  fuel. 

Probably  at  no  time  since  1850  was  yellows  entirely  absent  from  tbe 
orchards  in  this  section,  and  after  1856  it  seems  to  have  done  consider- 
able injury.*  But  this  first  epiphytotic  passed  off,  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
peaches  were  grown  very  successful!}'  until  tbe  seventies,  when  there 
appeared  a  second  and  more  destructive  outbreak  of  the  disease. 

Yellows  was  at  its  height  in  tbe  southern  half  of  this  county  in  1875, 
aud  comparatively  few  orchards  were  planted  after  this  date.  Of  those 
who  persisted  in  planting,  a  majority,  I  am  told,  lost  their  trees  by 
yellows  within  the  first  six  years.  Tbe  orchards  seemed  to  grow 
thriftily  and  do  well  for  three  or  four  years,  and  then  rapidly  declined. 

Middletowu  is  no  longer  tbe  center  of  tbe  peach  region,  and  com- 
paratively few  peaches  are  shipped  from  tbis  point,  or,  indeed,  from 
any  part  of  New  Castle.  The  total  baskets  shipped  from  this  station  iu 
1875  were  632,427;  iu  1888,  a  year  of  similar  abundance,  125,150.  The 
peacb  center  is  now  below  Do\'er,  and  the  evidence  is  very  strong 
that  it  is  moving  southward.  Last  year  iu  tbe  vicinity  of  Middletowu, 
and  again  this  year,  I  saw  comparatively  few  orchards,  and  yellows 
was  present  in  all  of  these.  I  beard  a  great  deal  about  tbe  losses  caused 
by  this  disease  in  years  past,  and  saw  abundant  evidence  of  its  de- 
structive work  iu  the  way  of  stumps  and  remnants  of  orchards  (see 
photo  XII).    Tbis  year  I  saw  peach  yellows  in  many  other  parts  of 

'  Letter  of  March  31,  1888. 
-  Letter  of  April  3,  1888, 
«  Letter  of  March  27,  1888. 

■•H.  H.  Appleton,  Odessa,  letter  of  April  3,  1888;  aiul  Janes  Hotiecker,  Smyrna, 
conversation  of  October  8,  1887. 


62  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

New  Castle  County.  There  are  very  few  old  orchards,  and  the  younger 
ones  just  coming  into  bearing  are  nearly  all  so  badly  diseased  that  they 
will  be  worthless  in  the  course  of  three  or  four  years. 

The  peach  acreage  of  New  Castle  County  in  1888,  as  compared  with 
that  in  1875,  shows  a  great  falling  off.  Everybody  admits  this.  There 
are  no  official  statistics,  but  the  most  reliable  estimates  iilace  the  num- 
ber of  trees  in  187o  at  about  1,750,000,  i.  c,  about  17,000  acres,^  most  of 
which  were  in  the  southern  one-third  of  the  county.  The  present  ex- 
tent of  peach  orchard  is  variously  estimated.  It  is  probably  about  one- 
sixth  what  it  formerly  was,  but  is  not  one-tenth — possibly  not  one- 
twentieth — of  what  it  would  have  been  but  for  the  yellows. 

In  1860,  roughly  speaking,  the  orchard  products  of  New  Castle 
County  were  worth  twice  those  of  Kent  County  and  five  times  those 
of  Sussex  County.  In  1870  New  Castle  still  led ;  Kent  produced  about 
five-sixths  as  much,  and  Sussex  one-sixth.  In  1880,  as  compared  with 
1870,  New  Castle  had  fallen  off  fi,ve-sixths,  Kent  had  remained  about 
stationary,  and  Sussex  had  doubled.^  During  all  this  period  the  greater 
part  of  the  receipts  from  orchard  products  in  each  of  the  counties  was 
for  peaches. 

Kent  and  Sussex. — The  growing  of  budded  peach  trees  in  Kent  County 
began  somewhat  earlier  than  in  New  Castle.  At  Frederica,  Jehu  Eeed 
planted  an  orchard  of  several  hundred  Red  Cheek  Melocotons  in  1829, 
and  within  two  or  three  years  set  other  budded  sorts  to  the  number  of 
10,000,  but  others  did  not  follow  his  example  until  considerably  later. 
However,  by  the  year  18G0,  there  were  many  market  orchards,  especially 
in  the  upper  half  of  the  county.  In  lower  Kent  and  in  Sussex  large 
commercial  orchards  did  not  become  numerous  until  a  decade  later,  and 
in  some  parts  of  Sussex  they  are  of  still  more  recent  date,  a  very  large 
uumber  of  trees  having  been  set  since  1880. 

In  1868,  according  to  Henry  T.  Williams,  orchards  in  Kent  and  Sus- 
sex ranged  from  5,000  to  20,000  trees,  and  in  1867  one  man  in  Sussex- 
put  out  60,000.  Mr.  Williams  also  mentions  having  seen  at  this  time 
near  Dover  a  bearing  orchard  of  70  acres.^ 

In  the  article  already  quoted,^  William  C.  Lodge  gives  a  graphic 
picture  of  the  extent  of  the  peach  industry  in  1870  in  the  upper  part  of 
Kent : 

Kentou,  iu  Kent  Conuty  [10  miles  uortbwest  of  Dover  aucl  5  miles  from  the  New 
Castle  Hue],  is  the  next  jioint  of  particular  luterest,  as  we  are  invited  to  inspect  the 
fine  orchard  of  Mr.  Gercker  in  that  viciuit3\  We  drive  through  Smyrna,  renowned 
for  its  peaches  rather  than  its  figs.     *     *     " 

We  pass  orchard  after  orchard  walled  in  by  the  impenetrable  osage-orange  hedge 

'  The  number  of  acres  of  peaches  iu  New  Castle  iu  1879,  according  to  uupublished 
statistics  of  the  U.  S.  Census,  furnished  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior,  was  11,600. 

■Eighlh  Census  U.  S.,  Vol.  on  Agri.,  p.  1(5;  Ninth  Census  U.  S.,  vol.  3,  p.  114;  and 
Tenth  Census  U.  S.,\ol.  3,  p.  261. 

'Zoc.  cit, 

*Loc.  cit. 


PEACH    GROWING    IN    DELAWARE.  63 

tliat  here  grows  liixuriautly.  The  conntiy  is  uearly  level  and  the  roads  so  straiglit 
that  we  look  before  us  away  to  where  the  lines  of  green  converge  to  a  point.     *     *     * 

Bnt  lierc  is  Gercker's;  and  the  tirst  siglit  shows  that  it  is  a  model  peach  farm.  We 
take  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the  thousand  acres  and  note  the  order  and  neatness  of  the 
plantation,  laid  out  in  square  lields  of  100  acres  each.  The  buildhigs  are  located  in 
the  central  part  of  the  only  field  not  planted  with  peach  trees.'  A  silver  thread  of 
water  winds  about  the  southern  boundary,  towards  which  the  ground  inclines.  All 
other  parts  appear  to  be  as  level  as  a  floor.     *     *     * 

The  trees  are  planted  in  parallel  rows  about  8  paces  apart,  and  from  our  perch  upon 
the  top  of  a  high  gate-post  we  look  down  upon  a  section  of  the  orchard  in  full  bear- 
ing, extending  from  near  the  house  to  the  distance  of  over  a  mile.     *     *     * 

In  the  early  morning  *  *  *  we  start  for  Dover,  the  State  capital  and  the  cen- 
ter of  the  finest  peach  district  in  the  world. 

At  Dover  is  a  large  distillery  and  three  canning  establishments,  capable  of  prepar- 
ing 25,000  cans  of  peaches  a  day.     *     »     * 

From  Dover  the  railroad  carries  a  daily  average  of  10,000  baskets,  while  three  large 
steamers  ply  between  its  port  at  Mahon  and  New  York  City  during  the  season  and 
are  unequal  to  the  freight.  To-doy  hundreds  of  baskets  are  left  on  the  wharf  to  per- 
ish or  to  be  sold  to  distillers  at  a  very  low  price.  Yet  the  loaded  wagons  still  come 
to  the  lauding,  and  a  mile  away  we  can  see  clouds  of  dust  indicating  the  speed  by 
which  the  driver  hopes  to  get  on  board  bis  last  load. 

Ten  years  later  i^each  growing  was  a  great  industry  around  Smyrna, 
Dover,  Lebanon,  Camden,  Canterbury,  Frederica,  and  in  many  other 
parts  of  the  county.  The  United  States  Census  of  1880  determined 
the  number  of  acres  of  peach  orchards  in  Kent  County  in  1879  to  be 
19,879,  containing  1,837,211  bearing  trees.^  Many  thousand  trees  have 
been  phinted  in  Kent  since  that  date,  and  the  most  reliable  estimates 
place  the  present  number  of  acres  of  peach  orchard  of  all  ages  at  40,000. 
There  is  scarcely  a  farm  without  its  peach  orchard.  Many  of  these 
orchards  contain  from  30  to  50  acres,  and  not  a  few  are  still  larger. 
Some  single  farms  contain  more  than  10,000  peach  trees,  and  where 
one  man  owns  several  farms  he  frequently  controls  from  500  to  1,000 
acres  of  peach  orchard. 

The  growing  of  budded  fruit  began  in  Sussex  considerably  later.  In 
18G0  the  total  orchard  products  given  in  the  United  States  Census 
reached  a  value  of  only  $13,189;  in  1870  the  value  is  said  to  be  $103,192; 
and  in  1880,  $243,132.  The  United  States  Census  of  18S0  determined 
the  acres  of  peach  orchard  to  be  12,977,  containing  1,230,134  bearing 
trees.^ 

'Mr.  John  Taylor,  of  Dover,  tenant  on  this  farm  from  ld69  to  1872,  informs  me  that 
during  the  entire  three  years  he  never  gathered  a  single  basket  of  premature  fruit, 
and  that  on  the  whole  farm  he  then  knew  of  only  one  diseased  tree.  This  stood  in  an 
apple  orchard  near  the  lane  and  bore  premature  peaches.  The  whole  farm  was  theu 
set  in  peach  orchard.  In  18Sy  this  farm  produced  1.52  (?)  car-loads  of  peaches;  i.  e., 
51,000  baskets.  In  1870  it  produced  16,300  baskets,  netting  $11,100.  (Conversation 
of  July  6,  1888.)  Yellows  is  now  prevalent  throughout  that  section  and  many  orchards 
are  being  ruined. 

-From  unpublished  data  of  the  Tenth  Census,  furnished  b^"  the  Department  of  the 
Interior,  Washington,  D.  C. 

^From  unpublished  data  of  the  Tenth  Census,  furnished  by  the  Department  of  the 
[nterior,  Washington,  D.  C. 


64  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Since  1879  many  peach-growers  from  the  upper  part  of  the  State  have 
gone  down  into  Sussex,  and  numerous  large  orchards  have  been  planted. 
The  most  reliable  estimates  j)lace  the  number  of  acres  of  peach  orchard 
now  set  in  Sussex  at  upwards  of  20,000.  In  1887  the  best  peaches  came 
from  Sussex  and  southern  Kent,  and  the  same  was  true  in  1888. 

The  topography  of  Kent  is  quite  monotonous.  The  land  is  flat  and 
but  little  raised  above  the  sea,  so  that  the  bay  front  includes  very  ex- 
tensive marshes.  There  are  no  hills,  save  by  courtesy.  Square  miles 
of  the  country  are  almost  as  level  as  a  floor,  and  nowhere  did  I  observe 
a  variation  in  level  of  more  than  100  feet,  and  rarely  so  much  as  that. 
The  land  was  formerly  cov^ered  with  a  good  growth  of  oak,  tulip  tree, 
chestnut,  walnut,  sassafras,  sweet  gum,  and  other  deciduous  trees;  but 
the  forests  have  given  place  to  farms.  These  farms  are  generally  larger 
than  those  of  New  York  and  the  Eastern  States,  althougli  not  more 
carefully  tilled.  The  soil  is  fertile,  varying  from  a  comparatively  stiff 
loam  to  light  sand.  The  greater  portion  of  it  is  a  mellow  loam,  the 
subsoil  being  usually  a  yellow,  white,  or  reddish  clay.  In  the  ex- 
tremely flat  land  southwest  of  Felton  the  soil  has  a  peculiar  ash-color. 
East  of  Felton  and  north  of  Milford  1  saw  some  pine  timber  of  small 
size,  second  growth  perhaps,  and  there  found  patches  of  quite  sandy 
soil,  which  did  not  appear  to  be  very  fertile. 

With  the  soil  and  topography  of  Sussex  I  am  not  so  well  acquainted. 
It  is  a  nearly  level  county,  of  lighter  soil  than  Kent,  a  very  much  larger 
portion  having  been  or  being  now  covered  with  pine  forest  or  gum-tree 
swamps.  There  are  in  the  county,  it  is  said,  more  than  one  hundred 
mills  for  the  manufacture  of  lumber.  In  the  west  part  I  saw  much 
sandy  scrub-pine  land  of  small  value  for  agriculture. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  when  yellows  first  appeared  in  Kent 
County.  Dr.  Ilenry  Kidgely,  who  is  an  extensive  grower  and  familiar 
with  the  disease,  informs  uie  that  he  saw  it  near  Dover  over  thirty  years 
ago,  and  John  S.  Jester  states  that  it  appeared  in  his  father's  orchard, 
near  Harrington,  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  and  killed  the  trees  in 
course  of  a  few  years  with  precisely  the  same  symptoms  that  the  disease 
now  manifests.  Moreover,  Hou.  George  P.  Fisher,  writing  from  Dover 
in  1852,1  describes  peach  yellows  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  what  he 
is  speaking,  and  implies  that  it  is  present  in  Kent  County.  It  was  not 
so  common  as  to  attract  much  attention  when  the  diseased  trees  were 
dug  out  and  burned.  He  advised  prompt  removal  and  burning ;  thought 
the  disease  could  be  prevented,  but  not  cured.  From  these  statements 
it  is  apparent  that  yellows  was  present  in  Kent  at  about  the  time  the 
orchards  were  being  destroyed  in  the  vicinity  of  Delaware  City. 

Two  decades  later,  when  the  orchards  about  Middletown  were  de- 
stroyed,  the  disease  was  at  Clayton,  in  an  orchard  owned  by  Alfred 
Hudson,  and  at  CowgilPs  Corners,  4  miles  east  of  Dover,  in  an  old  or- 
chard owned  by  Dr.  Henry  Kidgely.  Jeliu  M.  Eeed  also  informs  me 
'  Report  of  Commissioner  of  Fafenla  {Agriculture),  1852,  pp.  112,  113. 


YELLOWS    m    DELAWARE.  65 

that  he  saw  it  for  the  first  time  iu  Keut  County  about  ten  years  ago 
(1878)  iu  Mr.  Bancroft's  orchard,  near  Camden.  At  first  only  one  tree  was 
diseased.  Jacob  Brown  also  says  it  was  present  iu  one  of  his  orchards 
south  of  Dover  in  1875.  There  bas  probably  been  no  time  since  1850 
when  the  disease  was  not  present  iu  some  part  of  Keut  County.  Nev- 
ertheless until  recently  the  orchards  as  a  whole  remained  free  from  its 
ravages.  The  progressive  increase  iu  number  and  size  of  plantations  ; 
the  absence  of  general  complaint,  such  as  now  exists ;  and  the  large 
number  of  old  and  healthy  or  but  recently  diseased  orchards  iu  all 
parts  of  the  county  is  sufficient  proof  of  this.  There  are  also  some  in- 
teresting specific  statements.  In  18G9  Dr.  G.  Emerson,  formerly  of 
Dover,  refers  to  the  remarkably  long  life  of  the  Delaware  peach  or- 
chards;^ so  iu  1870  William  C.  Lodge,  already  quoted  j^  so  iu  1873 
Alex.  PuUeu,  already  quoted;^  so  in  188G  V.  M.  Augur  j'^  so  C.  V- 
Hovey  and  others.  D.  S.  Myer,  writing  from  Bridgeville,  Sussex 
County,  iu  1880,^  and  W.  P.  Corsa  (?),  from  Milford,  in  Kent,  iu  1883,^ 
state  that  yellows  had  not  appeared  at  either  place,  and  the  iuternal 
evidence  of  their  writing,  as  well  as  the  present  condition  of  the  orchards, 
bears  them  out.  To  these  published  statements  might  be  added  a  large 
amount  of  oral  testimony  from  Delaware  growers. 

I  have  also  received  a  letter  from  Jehu  M.  Keed,  of  Frederica,  stat- 
ing that  yellows  never  appeared  on  his  home  farm  until  about  three 
years  ago,  although  orchards  to  the  extent  of  ten  thousand  trees  have 
been  cultivated  on  this  farm  nearly  all  the  time  for  fifty-nine  years; 
when  one  orchard  was  wearing  out,  another  of  about  the  same  size 
being  set  on  a  different  i^art  of  the  farm.* 

It  is  thus  sufficiently  apparent  that,  while  the  disease  was  certainly 
present  in  Kent  at  an  early  date,  it  did  not  occur  in  many  orchards  or 
do  very  serious  injury.  Why  did  it  uot  spread  from  these  early  centers? 
The  explanations  which  have  been  suggested  will  be  discussed  later 
under  soil  exhaustion,  etc. 

Iu  1887  I  spent  the  last  part  of  August,  all  of  September,  and  the 
first  part  of  October  iu  Keut  County.  My  headquarters  were  at  Clay- 
ton, Dover,  and  Felton,  but  by  excursions  from  these  points  I  was  able 
to  examine  the  greater  part  of  the  county  and  to  obtain  a  very  full 
knowledge  not  only  of  the  extent  and  importance  of  the  peach  iudustry, 
but  also  of  the  present  distribution  of  peach  yellows,  which  in  some  re- 
spects is  very  interesting.  I  found  the  disease  almost  wherevei"  I  went. 
There  was  great  complaint  and  much  gloomy  foreboding.    The  disease 

^  Proceed i)i (J s  of  the  Amencan  Pomologlcal  Society,  1869,  p.  153. 

-  Loc.  cit. 

^  Tlie  Maryland  Farmer,  1873,  p.  77. 

*  Twentieth  Annual  Report  of  the  Connecticut  Board  of  Agriculture,  p.  345. 

''  The  Gardeners'  Monthly,  Pliilatlelpliia,  p.  20C, 

'^  The  Milford  Chronicle,  October,  1883. 

^  Letter  of  April  IG,  1888. 

11245— No.  9—5 


66  SPECIAL   REPORT    ON   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

was  most  prevalent  from  Smyrna  to  AV^yoming  and  east  to  the  bay,  but 
even  here  I  was  repeatedlj"  assured  that  the  trouble  had  not  been  serious 
until  the  last  two  years.  During  the  summers  of  1886  and  1887  the 
disease  was  observed  to  spread  with  alarming  rapidity.  "It  spread 
like  fire",  to  use  a  common  but  somewhat  exaggerated  expression.  I 
made  more  or  less  careful  examinations  in  seventy-five  orchards,  of  all 
ages,  on  all  kinds  of  soil,  and  embracing  a  total  of  several  thousand 
acres.  In  suitable  orchards  I  spent  from  one  to  several  days  and  made 
the  examination  as  exhaustive  as  possible.  It  was  my  special  good  for- 
tune to  see  the  disease  in  all  stages  during  the  growing  season,  and  to 
secure  the  cordial  sympathy  and  co-operation  of  a  great  many  peach- 
growers,  without  which  the  inquiry  would  have  been  much  less  satis- 
factory. 

Princiiially  from  my  field-notes  I  summarize  as  follows  :  About  Clay- 
ton and  Smyrna  yellows  is  in  all  or  nearly  all  the  bearing  orchards.  I 
do  not  recall  any  that  were  entirely  free,  and  some  are  so  badly  dis- 
eased as  to  be  of  no  value  save  for  fire- wood.  The  orchards  are  numer- 
ous. Almost  every  farm  has  from  one  to  a  half  dozen.  On  some 
farms  as  many  as  100  or  200  acres  are  devoted  to  peach  orchard.  The 
trees  are  of  all  ages,  from  those  set  in  1887  to  those  over  twenty  years 
old.  From  evidence  obtained  in  the  orchards  I  judged  that  yellows 
had  been  present  in  some  of  them  four  or  five  years,  while  in  others  it 
certainly  first  appeared  in  1887.  This  judgment  was  afterwards  con- 
firmed by  the  owners.  The  disease  occrfrs  in  bearing  trees  of  all  ages. 
AtLeipsic,  southeast  of  Clayton,  I  saw  many  diseased  trees  and  some 
fine  young  bearing  orchards  of  large  size  which  have  been  almost 
entirely  ruined  within  the  last  two  or  three  years. 

At  Dover  a  number  of  orchards  are  entirely  ruined,  and  many  others 
are  in  a  fair  way  to  be  at  an  early  date.  In  some  of  these  the  disease 
has  been  present  for  several  years,  but  in  a  majority  it  Grst  appeared 
in  1886  or  1887.  Many  orchards  now  affected  were  entirely  free  from 
it  until  1887.  Here  also  I  found  the  disease  in  bearing  trees  of  all  ages. 
Speaking  for  all  upper  Kent,  the  north  one-third,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  disease  was  in  four-fifths  of  the  orchards  and  in  many  of  them  to 
an  alarming  extent.  I  do  not  recall  a  single  orchard  over  three  years 
of  age  in  which  I  did  not  find  more  or  less  afiected  trees.  I  heard  of 
orchards  free  from  it  and  I  do  not  doubt  that  some  such  were  to  be 
found.    This  part  of  Kent  produced  few  peaches  in  1887. 

In  middle  Kent  the  disease  was  scarcely  less  prevalent.  In  this  part 
of  the  county  there  was  a  considerable  crop  of  peaches,  and  I  heard 
great  complaint,  especially  about  Lebanon,  Canterbury,  Camden,  Wy- 
oming, and  Magnolia,  of  premature  fruit.  I  also  saw  a  great  deal  of  this 
sort  of  fruit.  In  some  instances  from  one-third  to  one-half  the  crop 
ripened  prematurely,  with  great  loss.  In  my  judgment  the  disease  was 
present  in  three-fourths  of  the  bearing  orchards.  lu  many  it  first  ap- 
peared in  1887,  and  in  comparatively  few  could  I  discover,  either  by  ex- 


Yellows  in  Delaware.  67 

amiuatiou  or  by  iuquiry,  that  it  bad  existed  for  auy  great  leugtli  of  time. 
Nearly  all  tlie  trees  indicated  recent  disease.  However,  iu  oue  orchard 
at  Magnolia,  which  1  did  not  examine,  the  disease  bad  been  present  for 
a  number  of  years,  according  to  the  owner's  statement.  I  heard  similar 
statements  respecting  one  or  two  other  orchards,  but  owing  to  lack  of 
time  did  not  verifj^  them. 

In  southern  Kent,  the  lower  one-third,  the  disease  was  less  frequent. 
Many  farmers,  especially  those  living  west  and  southwest  of  Felton,  had 
never  seen  peach  yellows,  and  were  entirely  ignorant  of  its  eifects.  Here 
I  saw  the  disease  in  a  number  of  orchards,  but  iu  no  case  were  there 
many  trees  afit'ected,  nor  was  there  any  evidence  of  its  having  been  pres- 
ent previous  to  1887.  In  many  orchards  which  I  could  not  examine  I 
was  told  by  the  owners  that  the  disease  had  not  appeared;  and  "in  quite 
a  number  of  others  I  know  from  personal  inspection  that  the  disease  was 
not  present  in  1887.  During  my  stay  at  Felton  peaches  were  being 
brought  in  from  this  region  for  shipment,  and  on  several  occasions  I  ex- 
amined many  loads  without  finding  any  "  prematures."  Mr.  William 
V.  Smith  and  other  peach-buyers  then  at  Felton  also  told  me  that  com- 
paratively few  premature  peaches  had  been  brought  iu  by  the  farmers 
at  any  time  during  the  season. 

East  of  Felton  towards  Frederica,  and  east,  southeast,  and  south  of 
that  i)lace,  the  disease  was  in  at  least  one-half  the  bearing  orchards,  but 
in  a  majority  of  these  orchards  only  a  few  trees  were  yet  affected.  Most 
of  these  trees  became  diseased  during  the  year  1887.  However,  east 
and  southeast  of  Felton  there  was  abundant  evidence  in  three  orchards 
that  yellows  had  been  present  several  years,  probably  four  or  five,  and 
statements  made  independently  by  a  half-dozen  persons  confirmed  this 
inference. 

I  saw  well-marked  cases  of  the  disease  as  far  south  as  Milford,  both  in 
the  village  and  in  orchards  north  and  west,  and  from  reliable  men  had 
account  of  its  appearance  iu  orcliards  which  I  did  not  visit.  It  was  said 
on  good  authority  to  be  in  one-half  the  orchards  iu  that  region ;  but, 
from  what  I  saw  and  heard,  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  until  1886  this 
part  of  Delaware  was  almost  entirely  free  from  yellows — perhaps  entirely 
free.  I  saw  the  disease  in  bearing  trees  of  all  ages;  but,  with  one  or 
two  exceptions,  I  did  not  see  many  diseased  trees  in  any  one  orchard. 

The  conditions  in  1888,  in  this  part  of  Kent  County,  did  not  seem  to 
be  materially  changed.  The  disease  appeared,  however,  in  some  orchards 
previously  free  from  it,  and  new  cases  developed  in  the  orchards  al- 
ready aftected. 

As  a  whole,  the  trees  in  southern  Kent  are  still  healthy,  while  in  the 
north  one-third  of  the  county  the  reverse  of  this  statement  is  true.  In 
the  center  and  south  part  of  the  county  I  saw  many  orchards  between 
twenty  and  thirty  years  of  age,  some  further  account  of  which  will  be 
given  later  under  ''  climatic  conditions."  The  greater  number  of  the 
trees  iu  these  old  orchards  are  still  thrifty  and  in  good  bearing  condi- 


68  SPECIAL   REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

tion.    Both  iu  1887  and  iu  1888  many  of  tlieui  were  bent  to  the  ground 
under  their  burden  of  healthy  i)eaches. 

I  did  not  visit  Sussex  County  in  1887,  but  spent  some  days  at  Seaford 
in  1888.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  yellows  has  not  yet  appeared  in 
that  county,  at  least  not  to  any  extent,  unless  it  be  near  Milford.  The 
evidence  on  which  I  base  this  inference  is  fivefold : 

(1)  The  fact  that  yellows  prevailed  first  in  New  Castle  County  and 
later  in  Kent,  and  that  as  we  proceed  southward  through  Kent  the 
disease  becomes  less  and  less  frequent. 

(2)  The  fact  that  the  disease  does  not  occur,  at  least  to  any  great 
extent,  in  the  Maryland  counties  to  the  west  and  the  Maryland  and 
Virginia  counties  to  the  south  of  Sussex,  and  that  on  the  whole  west 
side  of  the  Peninsula  in  Maryland  the  disease  first  appeared  in  the 
north,  and,  as  in  Delaware,  shows  a  general  tendency  to  move  slowly 
from  north  to  south. 

(3)  The  entire  absence  on  the  part  of  the  growers  and  buyers  of  any 
complaint  about  prematurely  ripening  peaches.  There  has  certainly 
been  no  premature  fruit  of  any  amount  in  any  part  of  the  county,  and 
growers  have  had  no  experience  with  the  disease,  most  of  them  never 
having  seen  a  case. 

(4)  The  explicit  denial  of  its  presence  by  representative  growers  in 
various  parts  of  the  county — men  of  intelligence  and  character,  who 
have  seen  the  disease  in  Kent  and  New  Castle,  and  would  know  it  at 
sight.^ 

(5)  The  fact  that  in  August,  1888, 1  could  not  find  any  clearly  defined 
cases  of  the  disease  at  Seaford  or  Laurel,  although  I  inspected  about 
thirty  orchards  and  talked  with  many  growers.  The  most  I  could  dis- 
cover was  a  few  suspicious  trees  at  Seaford  in  two  or  three  young 
orchards,  recently  imi)orted  from  iS"ew  Jersey. 

^Nevertheless,  the  disease  may  be  present  to  a  limited  extent  in  va- 
rious parts  of  Sussex;  and,  judging  from  the  nature  of  its  movement 
on  the  Peninsula,  it  is  only  a  matter  of  time  when  there  also  it  will  be- 
come a  serious  hindrance  to  successful  peach  growing,  unless  some 
method  can  be  devised  for  keeping  it  in  check. 

Maryland. — What  has  been  said  relative  to  early  peach  growing  in 
Maryland  need  not  be  repeated  here. 

What  has  been  said  of  Delaware  applies  equally  to  the  i)eninsular 
part  of  Marylaud.  The  entire  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  peninsula,  sur- 
rounded by  Delaware  Bay,  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  the  Atlantic,  enjoys  a 
moist,  equable,  almost  insular  climate,  very  favorable  to  the  growth 
and  perfection  of  the  peach.  There  is  no  locality  on  tbe  globe  where 
this  tree  is  grown  more  extensively,  or  where,  upon  the  whole,  it  has 
been  more  productive  or  more  perfectly  at  home. 

My  own  inquiries  relate  specially  to  the  Peninsula,  and  in  considering 
the  recent  progress  of  peach  growing  and  tbe  increase  of  yellows  in 

ij.  H.  Myer,  of  Bridgeville;  E.  L.  Martin,  of  Seaford;  Harbeson  Hickman,  of 
Lewes;  Hon. Bacon,  of  Laurel ;  etc. 


P^ACII    GROWING    IN   xMARYLAND.  69 

Marylaud,  I  shall  lirst  cousider  this  region  beginning  with  the  more 
northern  connties. 

Cecil  County  is  the  most  northern,  bounded  on  the  north  by  Pennsyl- 
vania, on  tbe  east  by  upper  Delaware,  on  the  south  by  Kent  County,  from 
which  it  is  separated  by  Sassafras  River,  and  on  the  west  by  Chesapeake 
Bay  and  Susquehanna  Eiver,  which  separate  it  from  Harford  County. 

In  Cecil  County  the  first  budded  orchard  of  any  consequeuce  was  set 
iu  1830,^  on  the  '' Cassiday"  or  "  Feach  Blossom"  farm,  in  Sassafras 
Neck  on  the  river  six  miles  southwest  of  Cecilton.  The  "Cassiday" 
farm  soon  became  famous  through  all  that  region  both  for  the  quantity 
ami  the  quality  of  its  peaches;  ami  for  many  years  this  reputation  was 
more  than  sustained.  In  185G,  this  peach  farm,  containing  063  acres, 
rented  for  $0,600 ;  and  in  the  winter  of  1856-'o7  it  was  sold  to  Anthony 
lieybold,  of  Delaware,  for  $51.50  per  acre.^  In  September  of  the  next 
year,  we  are  told,  Mr.  Reybold  expected  to  realize  "over  $30,000"  from 
his  orchards  on  the  Cassiday  peach  farm.^ 

By  this  time  manj^  others  had  begun  to  plant  orchards  and  the  whole 
Sassafras  River  region  was  regarded  as  a  very  favorable  locality  for 
peach  culture.  Peaches  would  grow  there,  if  not  any  longer  at  Dela- 
ware City. 

In  1862,  a  Cecilton  correspondent  of  The  Country  Gentleman*  writes 
in  the  following  vein : 

The  peach  crop  is  fast  becoming  the  moneyed  one;  hardly  a  farm  is  without  its 
thousand  or  more  trees.  The  Cassidaj'^  farm,  now  Reybold's,  has  400  acres  in  peaches. 
There  are  several  other  orchards  nearly  as  large. 

In  1874,  Sassafras  Neck  was  still  a  famous  peach  region,  the  most 
important  in  the  county.^  This  relative  importance  it  has  retained  up 
to  the  present  time.  Peach-growing  in  Cecil  appears  to  have  culmi- 
nated some  time  between  1874  and  1887,  and  to  be  now -on  the  decline; 
but  although  I  visited  the  county  in  1888  I  have  not  enough  data  to 
discuss  the  matter  satisfactorily. 

Of  the  present  extent  of  peach-growing  George  Biddle,  of  Cecilton, 
vice-president  of  the  Peninsula  Horticultural  Society  for  Cecil  County, 
writes  as  follows :  ^ 

Cecil  Couuty  is  divided  into  nine  election  districts,  beginning  in  the  south  on  the 
Sassafras  River  and  running  toward  the  Pennsylvania  line  and  thence  westward  to 
the  Susquehanna.  This,  the  first  district,  has  about  a  half  million  peach  trees. 
Scarcely  a  farm  that  has  not  an  orchard.  The  second,  Chesapeake  district,  has  per- 
haps half  as  many;  and  the  third,  Elktou,  a  few  about  Iron  Hill.  Tlie  remainder  of 
the  couuty  has  scarcely  any,  none  for  market." 

'  George  Biddle,  letter  of  February  ^I^,  Iddd. 

-  Tlie  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1Sj7,  p.  223. 

3/i»K?.,  1858,  p.  94. 

■*  The  Country  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1802,  p.  235. 

*  The  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  1874,  p.  179. 

^  Letter  of  February  23,  1888. 

"One  sees  no  orchards  of  any  consequence  in  passing  through  Cecil  along  the  lino 
of  the  Philadelphia,  Wilmington  and  Baltimore  Railroad  from  Elkton  to  Havre  de 
Grace,  or  in  the  fine  country  ou  the  stage  line  between  Middlctowu  and  Cecilton. 


70  aPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Yellows  has  undoubtedly  been  present  in  some  parts  of  the  county 
for  luan}^  years.  G.  Morgan  Eldridge  thinks  he  saw  one  or  two  cases 
on  his  home  farm,  near  Cecilton,  as  early  as  1844  or  1845.  It  was  in  the 
orchards  of  Harford  County  in  1801,  1802,  and  1803,^  and  most  likely 
at  this  time,  if  not  earlier  in  those  of  Cecil.  Dr.  W.  S.  Maxwell  states 
that  premature  peaches  have  been  coming  down  from  Cecil  County,  on 
the  Baltimore  boats,  since  as  early  as  1874,  and  by  the  year  1880  as 
many  as  one-half  of  some  shipments  were  of  this  sort, 

Mr.  Biddle  says : 

I  have  Iteen  eugaged  iu  growing  peaches  since  1855.  During  that  time  there  has 
been  some  yellows.  As  to  the  cause  or  cure  I  know  nothing.  A  few  years  since  it 
hegan  in  the  orchards  of  my  neighbor,  Mr.  Hurlock ;  the  next  spring  [1884]  it  crossed 
the  road  to  one  of  mine,  and  spread  like  fire  from  row  to  row,  so  that  I  cat  it  down  iu 
the  summer.     This  is  my  only  experience  with  it.'- 

Last  year  I  was  told  by  several  peach-growers  liviug  on  the  south 
bank  of  Sassafras  Eiver,  that  yellows  had  destroyed  whole  orchards  in 
Cecil  during  the  ^ast  few  years,  but  can  not  vouch  for  the  entire  accu- 
racy of  these  statements.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  epiphytotic 
of  1886,  1887,  and  1888,  affected  many  orchards  iu  this  county. 

Mr.  William  V.  Smith,  of  Philadelphia,  who  has  bought  peaches  for 
several  years  in  Maryland  and  Delaware  and  is  familiar  with  the  whole 
region,  told  me  in  August,  1887,  at  Felton,  Del.,  that  he  saw  a  great 
many  premature  peaches  in  Cecil  County  in  1880.  Dr.  Dunlap  also 
speaks  of  the  disease  as  having  been  prevalent  in  Kent  and  Cecil  since 
"  about  1886  ;"  and  Wesley  Webb  states  that  it  is  a  serious  obstacle  to 
peach-growing  at  Iron  Hill  in  Elkton.^  .My  own  observations  in  1888 
also  convinced  me  that  yellows  is  as  prevalent  on  the  north  as  on  the 
south  side  of  Sassafras  Eiver.  I  saw  the  disease  iu  almost  every  bear- 
ing orchard,  and  often  in  many  trees. 

Of  Kent  and  Queen  Anne,  lying  south  of  Cecil,  I  can  speak  more  con- 
fidently, having  examined  many  orchards  in  various  parts  of  these  two 
counties  in  July  and  August,  1887. 

A  preliminary  account  of  the  soil  and  topography  of  this  part  of 
Maryland  is  necessary  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  situation.  The 
land  of  Kent  and  Queen  Anne  is  somewhat  rolling.  The  whole  Ches- 
apeake side  of  the  Peninsula  appears  to  be  higher  than  the  Delaware 
side,  and  in  places  along  the  bay  the  land  is  somewhat  hilly,  not,  how- 
ever, in  a  New  York  or  a  I^ew  England  sense  of  the  term.  Along  the 
upper  part  of  the  bay,  at  least,  there  are  comparatively  few  marshes. 
The  first  glimpse  one  gets  of  the  "East  Shore,"  sailing  over  from  Balti- 
more of  a  July  day,  are  peculiarly  charming.  One  sees  stretching  away 
for  miles  a  succession  of  low  green  blufi's  and  level  tracts,  20  to  50  feet 
or  more  above  the  bay,  dotted  with  orchards  and  farm-houses,  and  in- 

^The  Country  aeiitleman,  1862,  p.  270,  and  1863,  p.  209. 
"Log.  cit. 
'^  Transactions  of  the  Peninsula  Rorticultural  Society.  Dover,  Del.,  1888,  p.  45i 


TEACH    DISTRICT    OF    MARYLAND.  71 

tersi>ersed  with  groups  of  low  conifers  ami  small  bodies  of  deciduous 
forest. 

Nor  does  further  acquaiutauce  disenchant  one.  I  landed  at  Center- 
ville;  saw  the  country  there;  at  Queenstown ;  in  Spaniards'  Xeck  on 
the  east  shore  of  Chester  Kiver ;  in  Quaker  Neck  on  the  west  shore  5  at 
Price's  Station;  at  Church  Hill;  atChestertowu  ;  at  Still  Pond;  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Sassafras  River;  at  Locust  Grove,. and  in  various  other 
parts  of  both  counties.  There  is  some  poor  land,  but  the  greater  part 
of  the  country  is  excellent  farming  land,  free  from  stones  and  marshes 
and  under  a  good  state  of  cultivation.  The  farms  are  larger  than  in  the 
north  and  probably  not  as  fertile  as  they  once  were.  Originally  a  good 
portion  of  this  region  must  have  been  a  very  garden  of  fertility.  Stock- 
raising  is  not  extensive.  Wheat  and  corn  of  excellent  quality  are  staple 
crops.  In  some  places  wheat,  which  was  then  being  thrashed,  yielded 
from  25  to  30  bushels  per  acre,  but  the  average  yield  is  less,  probably 
considerably  under  20  bushels.  Commercial  fertilizers  are  commonly 
used,  especially  for  wheat. 

The  soil  varies  from  a  rather  stiff  clay  loam  to  a  light  sand.  As  a 
whole  it  is  loam,  with  clay  predominating  in  Kent  and  sand  in  Queen 
Anne.  Farther  south,  in  Talbot  and  Caroline,  I  am  told  that  the  soil 
is  sand^^  and  less  productive.  The  subsoil  in  Kent  is  red  or  yellow 
clay;  in  places  white  clay.  Land  with  red-clay  or  yellow-clay  subsoil 
is  usually  selected  for  peaches.  The  white-oak  land  generally  has  a 
white-clay  subsoil  and  is  not  considered  so  desirable.  Chestnut  and 
sassafras  land  produce  the  finest  orchards  and  the  best  peaches.  The 
original  timber,  now  largely  gone,  was  walnut,  chestnut,  oak  (red, 
black,  and  white),  sweet  and  sour  gum,  sassafras,  tulip  tree,  locust, 
and  other  deciduous  trees.  I  saw  many  red  cedars,  but  do  not  remem- 
ber to  have  seen  any  pine  in  upper  Kent.  In  Queen  Anne  and  lower 
Kent  there  are  some  pine  trees  of  two  species,  P.  inojjs  and  P.  Tcvda. 
Prom  what  I  saw  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  both  Kent  and 
Queen  Anne  are  prosperous  and  fertile  counties. 

Peach  growing  is  an  important  industry  in  both  and  the  leading  one 
of  many  sections.  The  two  counties  together  produce  more  peaches 
than  all  the  rest  of  the  East  Shore  and  nearly  one-half  as  many  as  all 
the  rest  of  Maryland.  The  tame  of  the  East  Shore  peaches  is  almost 
co-extensive  with  that  of  Maryland  itself.  Kent  is  the  older  county  and 
leads  in  the  production  of  this  fruit. 

The  first  Kentish  orchards  of  budded  fruit  were  set  about  1839  or 
1840;  some  along  Chester  River,  others  along  the  Sassafras,  others  on 
the  Bay  shore.  Between  1840  and  1850  many  small  orchards  were 
planted. 

Col.  Edward  Wilkius  set  his  first  large  orchard — 200  acres — near 
Chestertown  in  lS5fi,  and  continued  to  be  a  large  grower  for  twenty 
years.     Other  large  orchards  were  planted  about  185G.     In  1871  Colonel 
Wilkins  had  1,350  luives  in  peach  orchard,  i.  c".,  136,000  trees.^ 
1  The  Hot'tioidUtriat,  New  York,  1«71,  pp.  30e=-:3O8, 


72  SPECIAL    REPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

luTlie  Auiei'icaii  Fanuer^  for  1872  is  an  iiiterestiug  account  of  a  visit 
to  "a  Maryland  peach  orchard,"  made  by  the  editor  in  September  of 
that  year.  This  orchard  belonged  to  Col.  Ed.  Wilkins,  of  "  Eiverside," 
who  was  then  believed  to  be  the  largest  peach-grower  in  the  world. 
On  his  home  farm  Mere  about  25,000  bearing  trees,  an  old  orchard,  of 
like  number,  having  been  dug  out  the  previous  winter.-  This  orchard, 
with  the  bearing  ones  on  his  outlying  far;KS,  brought  the  total  up  to 
120,000  trees.  He  hall  also  6,000  trees  which  had  not  fruited,  and  pro- 
posed to  phmt  25,000  more  in  the  spring  of  1873. 

Since  the  first  orchards  were  planted  peach  growing  in  Kent  has 
steadily  increased  in  importance.  In  1870  it  was  a  great  industry,  and 
there  were  thousands  of  bearing  trees.  The  United  States  census  of 
1880  determined  the  number  of  acres  of  peach  orchard  to  be  13,383, 
containing  1,232,486  bearing  trees.  Since  that  date  very  many  large 
orchards  have  been  planted,  and  good  judges  estimate  the  present 
peach  acreage  of  Kent  County,  all  ages,  at  not  less  than  20,000  acres. 
Along  the  Chester  Elver  and  Sassafras  Elver  and  largely  in  the  coun- 
try between  and  along  the  Chesapeake  southwest  of  the  mouth  of  Sas- 
safras Eiver  peach  growing  is  the  leading  interest.  There  is  scarcely 
a  farm  without  its  orchard,  and  many  of  them  contain  from  2,000  to 
10,000  trees,  or  even  more.  Some  of  the  larger  growers  own  a  number 
of  farms,  and  thus  control  from  200  to  1,000  acres  of  orchard,  i.  e.,  from 
20,000  to  100,000  trees. 

As  in  Delaware,  the  peach  has  been  perfectly-  at  home  from  the  first, 
making  a  vigorous  growth,  yielding  abundantlj,  and  living  from 
twenty  to  thirty  years  when  not  destroyed  by  root  aphides,  borers, 
yellows,  or  overbearing. 

The  growing  of  budded  fruit  began  somewhat  later  in  Queen  Anne, 
but  is  now  one'of  the  leading  industries.  The  total  peach  acreage  of 
1880  was  8,051  acres,  containing  628,165  bearing  trees,^  and  the  present 
area  is  at  least  10,000  acres.  I  do  not  know  when  or  where  the  first 
large  commercial  orchards  were  set,  but  as  long  ago  as  1871,  at  Eound 
Top,  on  Chester  Eiver,  above  Chestertowu,  John  Harris  had  a  bearing 
orchard  of  1,013  acres.'  The  next  year  I  find  reference  to  large  or- 
chards farther  south — in  Spaniards'  Xeck.  There  James  Tighlnian  of 
John,  had  15,000  trees  and  Blanchard  Emory  4,000.  The  writer  adds: 
"  Queen  Anne  is  not  so  extensively  engaged  in  peach  growing  as  Kent, 
but  most  of  her  farmers  have  market  orchards."-'^ 

In  1887,  I  found  peach  orchards  in  Queen  Anne  all  along  Chester 
Elver  and  well  into  the  center  of  the  county.  Xearly  every  farm  has 
an  orchard,  and  many  are  of  large  size ;  the  largest  I  saw  contains  130 

1  The  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  1872,  pp.  329-33L 

-Most  likely  the  largo  orchard  set  in  1S5G. 

•'L^upublishecl  data  of  the  Tenth  Census  of  the  United  States. 

■•From  WUmiiKjion  {J)eJ.)  Commercial.  Quoted  in  The  American  F«rmt;r,  Baltimore, 
1872,  p.  62. 

^Account  of  visit  to  Mr.  Tio^hlmau.  Tlic  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  1872,  pp. 
247,248. 


YELLOWS    IN    MARYLAND.  73 

acreo.  The  oldest  trees  now  staiidmg  in  tlie  county  were  set  about 
tweutj^-five  or  thirty  years  ago.  I  did  not  visit  that  part  of  Queen 
Anne  lying  south  and  east  of  the  Centerville  branch  of  the  Philadel- 
phia, Wilmington  and  Baltimore  Railroad,  and  know  nothing  about  the 
extent  of  the  orchards  in  the  southeastern  part  of  the  county. 

When  yellows  first  appeared  in  Kent  I  have  no  means  of  determin- 
ing. James  S.  Harris,  of  Still  Pond,  for  many  years  a  large  grower  of 
peaches  and  one  familiar  with  the  symptoms  of  yellows,  informs  me 
that  he  lost  6  acres  by  this  disease  on  his  home  farm  between  18G1  and 
1869.  Hon.  Wm.  T.  Hepbron,  of  Kennedy  ville,  also  informs  me  that  the 
disease  has  been  in  that  vicinity  from  16  to  25  years.  Some  whole  or- 
chards were  destroyed  many  years  ago.  Across  the  county,  at  Chester- 
town,  yellows  appears  to  have  been  present  in  Colonel  VVilkins's  orchards 
as  early  as  1873,  if  we  may  judge  from  some  statements  made  by  him 
and  others  at  that  time. 

In  1872,  as  a  result  of  the  September  visit  already  mentioned,  the 
editor  of  The  Farmer  says :  ^ 

Except  tlie  borer  tlie  peach  seems  to  have  few  enemies  in  Maryland.  The  yellows, 
the  scourge  of  New  Jersey,  is,  so  far,  almost  unknown  in  Maryland. 

However,  in  March,  1874,  Colonel  Wilkins  contributes  a  curious  arti- 
cle to  The  Farmer  ^  on  "  Variation  in  the  Season  of  Ripening  of  Peaches." 
He  complains  that  a  change  has  taken  place  in  the  time  of  ripening 
of  peaches  so  that  thej^  now  ripen  at  the  same  time.  He  thinks  a  change 
of  quality  has  also  taken  place  in  some  of  our  old  and  most  esteemed 
varieties.  The  editors,  who  were  evidently  in  the  same  fog,  comment 
as  follows : 

The  subject  is  one  coming  home  to  every  grower  of  peaches  for  market.  The  fact 
of  the  gradual  lessening  and  final  disappearance  of  the  intervals  between  the  ripen- 
ing of  kinds  planted  to  succeed  each  other,  is  oue  which  has  become  apparent  to  all 
cultivators,  and  the  evil  has  been  very  seriously  felt  for  years,  never,  perhaps,  having 
occasioned  so  much  inconvenience  and  loss  as  in  the  year  1872.  Then  almost  all  dif- 
ferences of  season  appeared  obliterated,  and  varieties  whose  period  of  ripening  ex- 
tended over  at  least  three  weeks'  time  seemed  to  come  in  together. 

In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year^  mention  is  again  made  of  the  fact 
that  Colonel  Wilkins  finds  that  varieties  ripen  together,  when  they 
should  ripen  several  weeks  apart.  He  also  finds  "  other  unfavorable 
symptoais  in  his  orchards."  In  all  probability  this  prematuring  or 
ripening  together  was  due  to  yellows. 

William  Shallcross,  of  Locust  Grove,  also  informs  me  that  as  long 
ago  as  1875,  near  Sassafras  River,  he  lost  15  acres  of  three-year-old 
trees  by  "i^rematuring,"  and  states  that  the  remainder  of  the  50-acre 
orchard  died  in  a  few  years  from  the  same  disease.  Dr.  W.  S.  Maxwell 
also  observed  the  disease  iu  this  locality  as  long  ago  as  1875. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  clear  that  there  was  at  this  time  no  very  general 

destruction  of  the  peach  orchards  of  Kent  County.     In  1886  there  was, 

i . _^____ 

1  Loc.  cit. 

-  The  America)!  Fanner,  Baltimore,  ld74,  pp.  123-125, 

^Loc.  cit.  I).  247, 


74  SPECIAL    KEPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

however,  a  great  outbreak  of  yellows  throughout  all  upper  Keut,  aud 
this  epiph3totic  continued  in  1887  aud  1888  with  increasing  severity. 
It  was  certainly  preceded,  however,  by  the  appearance  of  yellows  iu  a 
number  of  orchards  at  considerable  distances  from  each  other.  In  fact, 
I  am  inclined  to  think  the  upper  part  of  the  county  lias  not  been  wholly 
free  from  this  disease  since  18G0. 

My  own  stndics  in  Kent  and  Queen  Anne  in  1887  consisted  of  more 
or  less  careful  examination  in  about  eightyhve  orchards,  and  of  dili- 
gent inquiry  among  the  peach-growers,  whom  I  found  very  courteous 
aud  helpful. 

Landing  at  Centerville  I  examined  orchards  in  that  vicinity  without 
finding  any  yellows,  nor  could  I  gather  from  conversation  or  correspond- 
ence with  growers  anything  which  led  me  to  believe  the  disease  was 
present  in  that  vicinity.  From  peach-growers  at  Centerville  I  received 
the  following  written  statements: 

I  kuow  little,  if  anything,  of  the  yellows.' 

We  have  never  had  the  i»each  yellows  among  us  to  know  it.  Oars  is  a  great  peach 
country,  and  though  we  are  largely  in  the  business,  and  have  been  for  twenty-five 
years,  I  have  never  seen  in  our  county  a  case  of  yellows  to  know  it  as  such.* 

Orally  I  received  much  similar  testimony. 

The  orchards  lying  south  of  Corsica  Eiver,  in  Corsica  Neck,  I  did 
not  examine,  but  was  assured  that  they  were  entirely  healthy.  Many 
l)eaches  are  grown  in  that  region. 

From  Centerville  I  went  to  Spaniards'  Neck,  a  flat,  fertile  tract  lying 
between  Corsica  and  Chester  Eivcrs.  This  region  abounds  in  fine  peach 
orchards.  I  explored  the  neck  from  one  end  to  the  other,  and  also  the 
country  north  for  some  miles  along  Chester  Eiver,  examining  twelve 
large  orchards.  In  none  of  these  did  I  find  peach  yellows.  Many  or- 
chards which  I  did  not  examine  looked  from  a  distance  remarkably  vig- 
orous. In  the  whole  neck  I  saw  only  three  bad-looking  orchards.  Two 
were  old,  neglected,  and  full  of  borers,  and  one  was  apparently  suffer- 
ing from  root  aphides.  Diligent  inquiry  in  this  neck  failed  to  bring  to 
light  any  evidence  of  the  present  or  of  the  past  existence  of  yellows. 
Of  fruit  there  was  very  little,  except  iu  the  extreme  end  of  the  neck. 

Across  the  Chester  Eiver,  iu  Quaker  Neck,  I  examined  a  number  of 
orchards  at  this  time  without  finding  any  traces  of  yellows.  Some  weeks 
later  I  drove  solith  from  Chestertowu  and  examined  other  orchards  in  the 
same  region  with  a  like  result.  One  young  orchard,  said  by  the  neigh- 
bors to  have  yellows  if  any  in  that  region  had  it,  was  found  to  be  stunted 
and  unthrifty.  The  owner  called  the  disease  yellows,  but  I  did  not. 
The  soil  was  a  rather  stiff  white  clay,  inclined  to  bake.  I  talked  with 
a  number  of  intelligent  growers  in  this  region,  whose  orchards  I  did  not 
examine  ;  none  knew  of  the  existence  of  the  disease  in  this  part  of  Kent 
County.    Tliey  had  heard  it  was  present  farther  north  at  Still  Pond, 

1  Edwin  H.  Brown,  letter  of  July  13,  1887. 
s  Sauiiiel  T.  Earle,  letter  of  July  22,  1887. 


YELLOWS    IN    MARYLAND.  75 

■where  I  afterwards  saw  it.  If  this  disease  occurred  iu  Spaniards'  Neck, 
or  anywhere  aloug  Chester  River,  on  either  side,  south  of  Chestertown, 
it  was  certainly  very  rare.^ 

Northeast  of  Centerville,  at  Price's  Station,  where  I  examined  or- 
ebards  and  talked  with  growers,  the  disease  was  unknown,  but  I  heard 
of  it  at  Sudlersville  and  at  Cruniptou,  still  farther  north. 

Near  Church  Hill  I  saw  many  orchards,  but  found  the  disease  at  one 
place  only,  iu  an  orchard  owned  by  Charles  Weatherby.  One  or  two 
small  limbs  on  each  of  three  large  and  vigorous  Mountain  Eose  trees  bore 
a  few  spotted  peaches,  some  of  which  were  ripe  as  early  as  July  24,  i.  e., 
about  three  weeks  in  advance  of  the  proper  time.  The  peaches  on  the 
other  limbs  were  green  and  about  one  half  grown.  There  were  no  other 
indications  of  disease  iu  these  trees,  nor  in  any  other  tree  in  this  or- 
chard of  25  acres,  then  sixteen  years  old,  nor  that  I  could  discover  iu 
a  neighboring  25-acre  orchard,  seven  years  old,  although  later  in  the 
season  two  trees  were  found  in  this  orchard.  The  younger  orchard,  then 
full  of  fruit,  was  particularly  healthy  and  a  source  of  much  gratification 
to  Mr.  Weatherby,  who  said  he  had  never  had  yellows  in  his  orchards 
and  never  kuew  of  any  in  the  neighborhood.  Many  other  peach  men 
living  iu  this  region  assured  me  tliat  yellows  had  never  appeared,  and 
some  large  growers  of  long  experience,  who  had  apparently  never  been 
very  far  from  home,  even  went  further  and  declared  that  there  was  no 
such  thing  as  yellows;  I  w^as  gravely  assui-ed  that  yellows  was  due  to 
neglect  and  the  depredations  of  borers  and  other  insects,  and  that  no 
man  need  have  this  disease  iu  his  peach  orchards  if  he  would  only  give 
them  proper  care.  In  one  orchard  I  heard  there  was  yellows,  and  a 
careful  examination  revealed  some  stunted  and  unthrifty  trees,  but  no 
traces  of  this  disease.  The  disease  was  present,  however,  that  year,  as 
I  afterwards  discovered,  in  two  seedling  trees  in  the  garden  of  E.  S. 
Yalliaut,  at  Church  Hill,  and  also  in  two  budded  trees  in  John  Evan's 
orchard  at  Eolph's  Wharf. 

Around  Chestertown,  where  there  are  many  large  orchards  and  where 
I  spent  some  time,  I  could  find  no  yellows,  except  in  an  orchard  belong- 
ing to  Wilber  Eliason.  In  this  were  sixteen  diseased  trees  in  two  groups. 
He  informed  me  that  the  yellows  first  appeared  in  1881  in  two  trees 
only.  Each  year  since  some  trees  have  been  dug  out  on  account  of  it, 
perhaps  twenty  iu  all.  This  orchard,  containing  about  3,000  trees,  is 
twenty-two  years  old,  but  is  still  vigorous.  On  this  farm  are  110  acres 
of  peach  trees  of  various  ages  and  all  healthy.  I  saw  no  other  cases 
of  yellows,  but  some  weeks  later  Mr.  Eliason  informed  me  that  he  had 
found  and  dug  out  a  group  of  twelve  diseased  trees  in  a  moist  spot,  in 
a  large  four-year-old  orchard,  around  which  we  drove  without  entering, 
and  which  for  vigor  and  beauty  I  particularly  admired. 

'Iq  188rf  I  re-examiuecl  this  region  A^ery  carefully,  iiudiug  a  few  affected  trees  at 
"  Kiverside,"  3^  miles  below  Chestertown,  and  a  few  also  iu  two  orchards  farther  down 
the  river,  in  Spaniards'  Neck,  in  Queeu  Anne, 


7G  SPECIAL    KEPOllT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Driving  north  froDi  CUestertown,  [  began  to  soe  indications  of  yellows 
at  Lynches,  and  from  this  point  to  Still  Pond  Village,  and  thence  to  Lo- 
cust Grove  and  Sassafras  Eiver  peach  trees  diseased  by  yellows  became 
more  and  more  frequent.  In  some  orchards  along  the  Sassafras  one- 
half  of  the  trees  were  affected  and  almost  no  orchards  were  entirely 
free  from  it.  Here  I  also  heard  great  complaint  by  many  growers  about 
loss  of  fruit  by  premature  ripening,  and  saw  many  premature  peaches, 
although  it  was  not  a  prolific  year.  The  badly  diseased  orchards  of  this 
region  can  be  distinguished  a  mile  off  by  the  unhealthy  reddish  and 
brownish  yellow  color  of  the  foliage,  which  is  in  marked  contrast  with 
the  beautiful  dark  green  foliage  of  orchards  10,  15,  or  20  miles  south. 

Alon  g  the  Sassafras  and  for  several  miles  south  the  disease  has  cer- 
taiulj^  existed  several  years.  The  evidence  of  this  is  in  the  orchards 
themselves,  and  I  also  obtained  confirmatory  statements  from  many  per- 
sons: e.g. — In  a  large  old  orchard  owned  by  James  Hurdd,  near  Locust 
Grove,  I  found  about  200  diseased  trees,  and  more  than  twice  as  many 
had  been  cut  down  in  previous  years  on  account  of  yellows.  The  dis- 
ease first  appeared  in  this  orchard  in  1884.  Some  miles  west  of  Locust 
Grove,  and  north  of  Still  Pond  Village,  yellows  appeared  in  a  young- 
orchard,  owned  by  J.  Frank  Wilson,  in  1882,  gradually  involving  more 
trees  each  year.  IsTorth  of  this  village,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Sassafras 
Eiver,  in  a  young  orchard  owned  by  Charles  H.  Price,  yellows  appeared 
in  1884,  gradually  involving  more  trees  each  year.  In  a  neighboring 
old  orchard,  owned  by  Dr.  W.  S.  Maxwell,  the  disease  first  appeared  in 
1883,  gradually  involving  more  and  more  trees,  and  appearing  in  younger 
orchards  on  the  same  farm  in  1884, 1885, 1886,  and  1887. 

The  distribution  of  peach  yellows  in  these  two  counties  in  1887  may 
be  summarized  as  follows:  It  was  widely  and  destructively  prevalent 
along  the  whole  length  of  the  Sassafras  Eiver.  From  this  point  it  be- 
came less  and  less  noticeable  down  to  Sudlersville,  Church  Hill,  and 
Chestertowu.  South  of  a  line  drawn  through  Chestertown  and  Church 
Hill  I  could  not  find  any  traces  of  the  disease,^  and  I  was  informed  that 
it  did  not  occur  in  Caroline  or  Somerset  Counties.- 

In  July  and  August,  1888,  I  revisited  this  region  and  spent  an  entire 
week  walking  and  driving  in  Queen  Anne  and  southern  Kent  to  de- 
termine, if  possible,  the  exact  southern  limits  of  the  disease.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  yellows  is  moving  southward  on  the  peninsula,  or  that 
on  the  southern  limit  of  1887  it  is  now  in  more  orchards  than  it  was 
then. 

Around  Chestertown  I  heard  of  the  disease  in  a  number  of  orchards 
said  to  have  been  free  in  1887.  In  the  orchard  of  Mrs.  S.  A.  AVilkins, 
at  "  Eiverside,"  I  saw  it  in  thirteen  trees,  in  two  widely  separated 
groups.     On  the  Aldridge  farm  near  Pomona,  I  saw  it  in  one  tree.     On 

'This  liue  projected,  southeast,  also  very  nearly  indicated  the  soiitheru  boundary 
of  the  disease  iu  Kent,  Del.,  the  yellows  being  considerably  farther  south  on  the 
Delaware  side  than  on  the  Chesapeake  side  of  the  peninsula. 

■'See  also  statement  by  John  Eutter,  p.  35. 


YELLOWS   IN   MARYLAND.  77 

the  Thomas  place,  uear  Fairlee,  I  saw  it  iu  one  tree.  On  the  farm  of 
James  L.  Beck,  near  Tolchester,  I  saw  it  in  thirty  trees.  With  one  ex- 
ception all  of  these  trees  were  young,  and  with  the  exception  of  some 
in  the  Beck  orchard  all  became  diseased  in  18SS.  The  orchards  in  this 
region  are  numerous  and  profitable.  I  must  have  seen  more  than  one 
hundred,  and  almost  all  of  them  were  very  green  and  thrifty. 

In  Queen  Anne  County  I  found  the  disease  much  more  prevalent  than 
in  1887.  Diseased  trees  were  not  at  all  difficult  to  find.  'No  one  knew 
of  the  disease  last  j'ear,  but  this  year  the  farmers  were  all  talking  about 
it.  I  saw  it  at  Eolph's  Wharf,  at  Churcli  Ilill,  at  Sudlersville,  and 
also,  to  a  very  limited  extent,  in  Spaniards'  Neck.  In  the  north  part  of 
the  county  it  is  in  many  orchards.  I  saw  it  in  at  least  a  dozen,  and 
heard  of  it  in  others.  Charles  Clements,  of  Sudlersville,  who  traveled 
all  over  the  north  part  of  Queen  Anne  in  1888  buying  peaches,  told  me 
that  he  found  premature  fruit  in  nearly  every  orchard,  although,  as  a 
rule,  only  a  few  trees  in  an  orchard  were  yet  affected.  The  most  I  saw 
.  in  any  one  orchard  was  thirty  trees.  This  was  on  the  farm  of  Findley 
Eoberts,  near  Sudlersville. 

The  orchards  of  Queen  Anne  were  green  and  thrifty,  and  at  a  distance 
gave  no  indication  of  disease. 

I  believe  the  disease  does  not  now  occur  anywhere  on  the  "East 
Shore  "  south  of  Centreville  and  Denton,  although  1  have  not  traveled 
in  any  of  the  southern  counties,  but  have  to  depend  entirely  on  the  state- 
ments of  others  (see  Map  YIII). 

According  to  "  T.  E.  B.,"  peach  yellows  was  in  orchards  at  Falston, 
in  the  western  part  of  Harford  County,  as  long  ago  as  1861-'G2.i  /jj^g  next 
year  the  same  writer  says : 

Peaclies  liave  generally  failed  iu  this  ueit^bborhood.  [He  ascribes  this  failure  to 
yellows.]  The  yellows,  as  it  is  called,  *  *  *  is  coutagious,  and  a  single  diseased 
tree  -will,  in  a  few  yciirs,  destroy  an  orchard.  Every  one  that  looks  sickly,  and 
especially  one  that  ripens  any  of  its  frnit  prematurely,  should  immediately  be  dug 
up.^ 

Dr.  W.  S.  Maxwell,  who  visited  Harford  County  in  the  fall  of  1887, 
and  again  in  July,  1888^  saw  yellows  in  several  small  orchards  between 
Aberdeen  and  Churchville.  Along  Deer  Creek  peaches  grew  well 
twenty  years  ago,  according  to  Dr.  James  McGraw,  but  now  the  yellows 
destroys  them  before  they  reach  bearing  age.  According  to  statements 
made  by  others,  peach  orchards  were  formerly  plentiful  in  Harford, 
along  the  Bay  Shore,  from  Spescutie  Narrows  down  to  a  point  opposite 
Poole's  Island.  Yellows  destroyed  these  orchards.  The  disease  now 
attacks  young  orchards  when  they  first  come  into  bearing,  and  soon 
destroys  them. 

Peaches  are  now  grown  in  Harford  County  only  to  a  limited  extent.^ 

ij/ze  Countrij  Gentleman,  18G2,  p.  270. 
^Ibid.,  September,  1863,  p.  209. 

3  James  S.  Harris,  letter  of  January  31,  ISsS  ;  W.  S.  Maxwell,  M.  D.,  letter  of  Feb- 
ruary 12,  1888.     See,  also,  Map  VIII, 


78  SPECIAL   REPORT    OX   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

In  Baltimore  County,  wliicli  joins  Harford  on  the  west,  peaches  have 
been  grown  for  market  many  years.  As  long  ago  as  1834,  near  Balti- 
more, liicbard  Cromwell  grew  peaches  to  such  an  extent  that  he  was 
commonly  called  "the  peach  king."^  His  first  orchard  must  have 
been  set  as  early  as  1810 ;  and  for  several  decades  he  supplied  the  city 
of  Baltimore  "  with  peaches  of  the  best  quality  and  on  a  large  scale/' 
According  to  Robert  Sinclair,  yellows  was  present  in  Mr.  Cromwell's 
orchards  prior  to  1810,  and  it  was  his  custom  to  dig  out  such  trees  with 
a  view  to  preventing  the  spread  of  what  he  believed  to  be  a  communi- 
cable disease- 
Concerning  the  appearance  and  nature  of  yellows,  Mr.  Sinclair  says: 

I  am  fully  satisfied  tbat  the  complaint  exists.  Some  persous  saj-  that  the  worm  at 
the  root  is  the  cause  of  the  yellows.  I  acknowledge  that  any  disorder  that  destroys 
the  trees  -will  cause  the  le.ives  to  turn  yellow;  hut  the  complaint  I  call  yellows  will 
kill  a  whole  orchard,  without  any  visihle  wounds,  on  or  hefore  the  third  or  fourth  full 
crop.  I  think  where  any  neighborhood  abounds  with  peach  orchards  it  will  be  nearly 
impossible  to  keep  clear  of  the  disease.  *  *  *  i  think  I  have  seen  evidences  of 
its  being  in  some  degree  contagious. 

His  attention  had  been  called  to  this  disease  occasionally  ''  for  about 
thirty  years" — /.  e.,  since  about  1810. 

In  1887  S.  H.  Wilson,  of  Baltimore  County,  writing  on  "  Peach  Yel- 
lows in  Maryland,"^  says  that  forty  years  ago  trees  "rarely,  if  ever, 
failed  to  grow  and  produce  large  crops  for  years,"  even  when  neglected. 

Some  years  before  the  civil  war  his  neighbor  set  out  10  or  12  acres  of 
peach  trees,  which  did  well.  Seven  or  eight  years  later  this  man  set 
out  two  additional  orchards  of  about  the  same  size.  "  Before  they  came 
into  bearing,  the  yellows,  a  thing  heretofore  unknown,  attacked  the  old 
orchard  and  spread  to  the  two  young  plantations;  and  I  do  not  think 
his  last  two  plantations  produced  a  peck  of  fruit." 

When  he  came  upon  his  own  place,  seventeen  years  ago  (1870),  "  it 
was  nearly  all  planted  with  peach  trees  just  coming  into  full  bearing." 
Yellows  was  then  present,  and  it  gradually  spread  until  now  but  one 
tree  is  left,  although  he  has  dug  out,  cultivated,  and  boned  heavily.  Of 
four  trees  set  in  1870,  one  contracted  the  disease  the  third  year ;  the 
rest  after  two  crops.  In  1882  he  set  twenty-seven  first-class  trees  and 
kept  the  ground  cultivated.  "  I  have  applied  yearly  kainit,  high-grade 
muriate  of  potash,  bone,  and  wood  ashes ;  look  for  worms  a  dozen  times 
a  year;  head  back  one-half  of  every  branch,  and  now  a  good  share  of 
these  trees  have  the  yellows.  My  soil  is  a  heavy  loam  ;  subsoil,  vellow 
clay." 

In  1887 1  saw  the  disease  in  the  following  places  on  the  "  west  shore  : " 
In  Harford  County,  at  Havre  de  Grace  and  Edgewood;  in  Baltimore 

'Transactions  of  the  American  Institute,  1849,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1850,  p.  292. 

-Robert  Sinclair,  Clairmout  Nursery,  near  Baltimore,  March  18,  1841.  Magazine  of 
Horticulture,  VII,  p.  210.  Quoted  in  Farmer's  Begister,  Petershurgh^  Va.,  1841,  pp. 
357,  358. 

^  Tlie  American  (iarclen,  New  York,  1887,  p.  72. 


YELLOWS    IN   GEORGIA.  79 

County,  ill  the  twelfth  district;  in  Anne  Arundel  County,  at  Odenton. 
I  have  also  been  informed  that  the  disease  occurs  in  Prince  George 
County',  and  believe  this  statement  to  be  correct.  The  disease  also 
occurs  in  the  mountains  of  Washington  County  and  in  other  parts  of 
west  Maryland, 

The  yellows  also  occurs  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  18SG  I  saw 
several  trees  evidently  diseased  by  it  for  a  number  of  years,  and  then 
in  a  dying  condition.  In  1887,  in  yards  and  gardens  in  various  parts 
of  the  city  of  Washington,  I  found  no  less  than  twenty  trees  showing 
unmistakable  signs  of  yellows,  /.  e.,  bearing  the  pale,  puny,  much- 
branched  summer  shoots.  In  all  but  one  or  two  of  these  trees  the 
disease  had  evidently  developed  that  year  or  the  preceding. 

Virginia. — The  disease  occurs  to  some  extent  on  the  west  bank  of  the 
Potomac,  in  the  vicinity  of  Washington,  where  I  saw  it  in*i886. 

It  has  also  been  reported  from  other  parts  of  the  State,'  and  was 
present  as  long  ago  as  1849,  if  we  may  credit  the  following  statement 
made  by  Yardley  Taylor,  of  Loudon  County,  in  his  report  to  the  second 
congress  of  fruit  growers  convened  in  New  York  City  : 

Peaches  succeed  well  here.  It  is  no  uucommon  thiug  to  see  trees  thirty  or  forty 
years  old.  The  yellows  occasionally  are  seeu,  and  where  no  efforts  are  made  to  ex- 
tirpate those  that  are  affected,  the  disease  has  in  some  places  destroyed  many  trees.'^ 

Similar  statements  w'ere  made  in  1852  by  a  committee  of  the  American 
■Pomological  Society  at  the  Philadelphia  meeting  of  that  year.^ 

South  Carolina. — In  1877.  The  Southern  Cultivator  published  some 
curious  statements  as  to  the  "wide  variation  in  timeof  ripening  of  peaches 
in  South  Carolina.  This  variation  was  attributed  to  locality  and  ex- 
ternal influences,''  but  is  a  suspicious  indication.  It  would  not,  there- 
fore, be  surprising  if  yellows  were  found  to  exist  in  that  State,^ 

Georgia. — The  first  orchards,  as  we  have  already  seen,  were  set  as 
early  as  1730,  perhaps  earlier,  soil  and  climate  both  appearing  to  be 
congenial.  Budded  peaches  were  not,  however,  planted  very  exten- 
sively until  after  the  civil  war.  This  State  now  grows  peaches  for  com- 
mercial purposes,  and  there  are  some  very  large  orchards  in  the  middle 
west  part. 

That  yellows  exists  anywhere  in  Georgia  has  never  been  clearly  es- 
tablished. Eepeated  inquiries  during  the  last  thirty  years  of  prominent 
peach-growers  living  in  this  State  have  always  elicited  such  responses 
as  the  following :  "  Yellows  does  not  exist  in  Georgia."  "  It  has  never 
appeared  here."    "  It  is  a  disease  of  northern  climates." 

The  published  evidence  in  favor  of  its  occurrence  in  Georgia  is  very 
meager. 

'  Report  on  Condition  of  Growing  Crops,  August,  1887,  Washington,  D.  C. 
2  Trans,  of  the  Am.  Inst.,  1849,  pp.  294,295. 
'  The  Plough,  Loom,  and  Anvil,  Vol.  V,  part  II,  p.  38. 
*  The  Cultivator  and  Country  Gentleman,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1877,  p.  413. 
sSee  Condition  of  Growiug  Crops,  J i(^!(s<,  1887,  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, p.  375. 


80  SPECIAL    EEPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

In  1877,  T.  T.  Lyon,  of  South  Ilaveu,  Micb.,  received  a  imiuber  of 
young  trees  from  P.  J.  Berckmaiis,  of  Augusta,  Ga.  One  of  these  trees 
developed  that  season,  on  Mr.  Lyon's  grounds,  a  very  characteristic  wiry 
growth  on  the  stock  below  the  graft,  and  the  next  season  the  top  of 
this  tree  also  became  diseased  with  what  he  considered  to  be  unmistak- 
able yellows.'  Mr.  Lyon  believes  the  disease  was  dormant  in  the  tree 
when  it  was  removed  from  the  Georgia  nursery,  but  as  peach  yellows 
existed  in  other  orchards  at  South  Haven  at  that  time,  the  evidence 
that  this  tree  became  diseased  in  Georgia  is  not  entirely  conclusive. 

I  know  of  one  other  reason  only  for  suspicion.  There  is  a  disease  of 
peach  trees  in  middle  G»eorgia,  in  and  near  Griffin,  which  is  entirely  dis- 
tinct from  the  effects  of  borers  or  of  starvation,  and  is  said  to  kill  the 
trees  in  two  pr  three  years.  I  have  not  visited  that  locality,  but  have 
received  numerous  specimens  gathered  at  different  times  of  the  year, 
and  judging  from  these  and  from  accounts  of  the  disease  furnished  by 
J.  D.  Husted,  of  Vineyard,  Ga.,  and  by  James  N.  Harris,  of  Griffin,  I 
am  inclined  to  think  it  is  yellows.  Mr.  Husted's  description  is  as  fol- 
lows:* 

The  whole  tree  usually  assumes  a  sickly  appearance ;  the  leaves  are  very  small  and 
slender,  Tvith  a  yellow  death-like  look.  Late  in  the  season  or  second  season  of  the 
attack  the  tree  ceases  to  make  terminal  growth,  and  a  bunch  or  rosette  of  leaves  forms 
at  the  tips  of  limbs,  making  the  tree  conspicuous  at  a  distance. ^  Trees  thus  attacked 
are  sure  to  die  the  second  or  third  year.  The  symptoms  difler  from  the  yellows  as 
known  in  Michigan.  So  far  as  I  can  learn,  it  is  not  infectious,  as  single  trees  are 
often  allowed  to  stand  in  the  orchard  until  they  die  (which  they  are  certain  to  do), 
and  the  nearest  trees  remain  healthy.  The  small  wiry  shoots  do  not  appear  on  the 
main  branclies,  as  they  do  in  the  North,  and  I  believe  (though  not  quite  sure)  the  dis- 
eased trees  are  barren  of  fruit  from  their  first  attack. 

In  1888,  Mr.  Husted  wrote  again  as  follows:* 

The  lot  in  top  of  box  *  *  *  is  from  a  small  tree  just  attacked  this  summer,  and 
is  the  only  case  I  have  found  where  the  whole  tree  was  not  attacked  at  once  with 
the  disease.  You  will  notice  that  some  of  the  branches  are  apparently  healthy 
although  the  whole  of  the  base  of  the  tree  appears  affected. 

The  second  and  last  specimens  *  »  *  are  from  a  strong  tree,  six  years  old,  and 
every  part  is  diseased  like  the  specimens  I  send  you  [same  as  Photo.  XVI].  This 
last  tree,  as  well  as  the  first,  showed  no  symptoms  of  disease  last  summer  that  I  no- 
ticed, but  from  the  fact  that  it  shows  so  complete  development  of  the  disease  now,  it 
is  quite  probable  that  it  escaped  my  notice  last  season.  I  am  of  the  opinion  the  first 
symptoms  of  disease,  in  this  locality  at  least,  are  not  so  manifest  as  in  the  Xorth.  I 
have  found  no  person  yet  who  has  ever  seen  a  tree  with  the  disease  in  beaiing,  and 
although  several  trees  have  fruited  prematurely  this  season  with  fruit  of  large  size, 
yet  the  flavor  was  good — a  little  more  astringent  than  usual;  the  surface  was  not 
high  colored,  and  the  flesh  of  the  fruit  was  of  the  usual  color  in  sound  fruit.     »     *     • 

In  my  orchard  of  6,000  trees,  from  three  to  six  years  old,  I  dug  tip  last  season  three 
[such]  trees,  and  this  season  have  taken  out  two,  and  have  two  more  to  dig  out. 

1  Conversation  of  May  1,  1888;  see,  also,  Ann.  Kept,  of  ihe  Secy  of  Ike  Mich.  Slate 
Pom.  Soc.,1878,  p.  258;  1880,  p.  273,  and  1884,  p.  177. 

«  Letter  of  September  20,  1887. 

3  See  Plate  No.  V  of  Washington  tree,  and  Plates  Nos.  XVI,  XVII,  XVIII,  photo- 
graphed from  Georgia  specimens. 

■*  Letter  of  June  18,  1688. 


YELLOWS    IN    GEORGIA.  81 

Some  old  ami  ueglectcd  orchards  are  diseased  still  more.     It  is  tlie  opiuiou  of  several 
of  the  fruit-growers  that  the  disease  is  oa  the  iucrease. 

Peach  trees  here  grow  along  the  hedge-rows  and  streams  and  the  woodlands,  and 
trees  [thus]  diseased  are  occasionally  found  iu  these  i)laces. 

June  6, 1888,  I  received  specimeus  from  J.  iST.  Harris,  of  Griffin,  Ga., 
which  proved  identical  with  those  sent  iu  May  and  Jiuie  by  Mr.  Husted, 
of  Vineyard.     Tlie  letter  accompanying  these  says  : 

There  are  a  good  many  trees  in  this  section  uow  in  this  condition.  They  grow  one 
year  this  way  and  the  next  they  die.     I  don't  know  one  that  has  ever  recovered. 

In  answer  to  my  in<piiries  Mr.  Harris  sent  an  abundance  of  speci- 
mens (see  Photos.  XVI [  and  XVIII),  and,  speal^ing  for  the  Middle 
Georgia  Horticultural  Society,  of  which  both  he  and  Mr.  Husted  are 
active  members,  made  a  number  of  important  statements,^  which  I  sum- 
marize as  follows : 

Peaches  have  been  grown  in  the  vicinity  of  Griffin  seventy-five  to  one 
hundred  years,  and  within  a  radius  of  7  or  8  miles  there  are  now  several 
thousand  acres,  with  probably  150,000  trees.  The  soil  is  rolling,  being 
mostly  dry  hillsides  with  Hats  between  them.  The  lands  are  usually 
rather  thin  and  sandy  or  gravelly,  with  a  clay  subsoil.  In  some  places 
they  are  more  fertile.  As  a  rule  peach  trees  do  best  on  the  "good 
medium  lauds  ;  *'  in  rich  bottoms  they  do  not  flourish.  This  disease  first 
appeared  in  the  vicinity  from  six  to  ten  years  ago.  It  is  now  in  all  the 
orchards.  Usually  about  1  per  cent,  of  the  trees  are  aflected,  but  in  a 
few  orchards  as  many  as  10  per  cent.  It  appears  to  be  on  the  increase, 
and  is  beginning  to  look  serious.  The  trees  never  bear  any  fruit  the 
year  the  disease  is  on,  and  are  sure  to  die  the  next  year.  He  also  thinks 
they  seldom  bear  any  fruit  the  previous  year,  but  does  not  wish  to  speak 
positively  on  this  point  until  he  has  made  further  observations. 

The  Georgia  specimens  which  I  have  examined  differ  from  the  yellows 
of  Michigan  and  Delaware  only  in  the  following  particulars: 

(1)  In  the  development  of  the  diseased  shoots  in  early  spring  from 
the  ordinary  winter  buds,  instead  of  later  iu  the  season  from  obscure  or 
adventitious  buds  on  the  trunk  and  branches. 

(2)  In  the  excessive  shortening  of  the  shoot-axes  whereby  the  branches 
and  leaves  of  each  shoot  assume  the  form  of  a  compact  tuft  or  rosette. 

However,  in  Maryland  and  Delaware  diseased  shoots  are  not  strictly 
confined  to  obscure  buds,  as  we  shall  see ;  and  undoubtedly  symptom 
Xo.  1  will  not  be  found  constant  in  Georgia.  I  should  certainly  expect 
to  find  some  of  tlie  trees  also  putting  out  feeble  shoots  on  trunk  and 
larger  limbs.  Symptom  Xo;  2  evidently  results  from  the  fact  that  all 
the  living  buds  push  in  this  manner,  and  the  tree  has  not  vitality  enough 
to  produce  a  normal  shoot-axis  from  any  one.  By  carefully  removing 
the  foliage,  as  in  Photo.  XVIII,  the  characteristic  secondary  and  terti- 
ary branches  can  be  readily  observed.  Later  iu  the  season,  1  have  no 
doubt,  quartan  and  (quintan  branches  could  be  found  on  some  of  these 

'  Letter  of  June  13, 1888. 
11245— Xo.  9 6 


82  SPECIAL    KEl'UKT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

shoots.  Altliough  in  the  photographs  the  tni'ts  somewhat  resemble 
leafy  galls  there  is  no  reason  to  thiuk  that  gall-flies  or  other  leaf-infest- 
iug  insects  have  any  tiling  whatever  to  do  with  their  production.  If  the 
shoot-axes  and  their  branches  were  elongated  we  should  have  growths 
identical  with  those  shown  in  Photos.  I,  IF,  and  III. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  further  inquiries  will  show  that  this  stage  of 
the  disease  is  preceded  by  the  appearance  of  prematurely  ripened  fruit.' 

Kentucky. — The  disease  undoubtedly  occurs  in  this  State,  but  appears 
to  be  rare.-' 

Illinois. — Tlie  disease  is  said  to  exist  in  two  jtlaces  in  southern  Illi- 
nois— "  near  Duquoin,  Perry  County,  and  in  the  neighborhood  of  Villa 
Ridge,  Pulaski  County.'"  Quite  a  good  many  peaches  are  grown  in  this 
part  of  Illinois. 

Tennessee. — P.  M.  Augur,  State  ])omologist  of  Connecticut,  thinks  he 
has  seen  the  genuine  peach  yellows  in  this  State.^ 

JMississippi. — Thomas  Meehan  also  thinks  he  saw  it  in  Mississippi, 
along  tlie  Jackson  route,^  but  this  was  denied  b^'  people  in  that  region. 

Louisiana. — In  the  proceedings  of  the  iVmerican  Pomological  Society 
for  1875,  p.  152,  Dr.  R.  H.  Day,  of  Baton  liouge  Parish,  gives  an  account 
of  the  loss  of  a  peach  orchard  of  100  acres,  about  1850-'53,  and  of  two 
others  about  1871-'73,  by  a  disease  very  suggestive  of  yellows.  The 
trees  are  said  to  have  looked  well  and  grown  finely  "  till  about  their 
third  or  fourth  year,"  when  they  sicken(Ml  and  died.  No  symptoms  are 
given. 

Texas. — Yellows  has  also  been  reported  to  me  from  the  orchards  on 
the  south  bank  of  Ked  Iviver,  but  I  have  not  seen  specimens.  It  is  said 
to  exist  only  to  a  slight  extent. 

iSummari/. — All  facts  that  I  could  discover  by  personal  examination 
or  gather  by  reading,  coiiversation,  or  correspondence  relative  to  the 
occurrence  of  yellows  south  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  have  been 
presented  in  the  preceding  pages.  They  may  be  summarized  as  fol- 
lows: (I)  Peach  yellows  prevails  extensively  and  disastrously  in  upi)er 
and  middle  Delaware  and  in  upper  Mary  hmd.  (2)  It  is  absent  or  rare  in 
southern  Delaware,  in  southern  Maryland,  and  in  Virginia.  (3)  Evidence 
of  its  occurrence  in  the  more  southern  States  is  very  meager,  and  for  the 

'  lu  November,  188H,  I  received  additioual  specimens  iVoin  Jlr.  Hiisted  (see  Photos 
XIX-XXT).  Ill  XX  and  XXI  all  the  winter  l)nds  pushed  in  October,  the  same  as  in 
many  Delaware  and  Maryland  trees  (see  Photos  I  and  XXVIII-XXXI.)  These 
shoots  come  from  two  young  trees  which  were  procured  in  New  .Jersey  and  set  in 
Georgia  two  years  ago.  About  30  out  of  600  showed  yellows  in  1888.  Photo  XIX  is 
from  a  tree  grown  and  budded  in  Georgia,  so  also  arc  Photos  XVI  aud  XVII.  There 
need  be  no  further  doubt,  I  think,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  disease,  although  1  have 
not  been  able  to  visit  Georgia  or  to  get  any  further  light  on  the  questiou  of  the 
occurrence  of  premature  fruit. 

-  Ccniditioii  Iff  (iron-))) <i  Crops,  .hifiufil.  1887.     IT.  S.  Dept.  ol'Agii.,  pj).  37.n,  I37(). 

^  //*(■(/..  p.  :{7(!. 

••  AnniKil  Rvporl  of  the  Codii.  rxmnl  of  .I'/ri..  188G,  p.  :!45. 

°T/te  Garde))crfi'  Monthhj,  Phila.,  1;81,  p.  8:5. 


GENERAL    SUMMARY  83 

most  part  uusatisfactory,  middle  Georgia  being  the  only  place  where  I 
have  established  its  presence  with  any  degree  of  certainty. 

CONCLUSIOXS. 

The  literature  of  peach  yellows  is  a  medley  of  contradictions.  All 
sorts  of  views  have  been  promulgated,  with  greater  or  less  show  of 
wisdom,  and  many  theories  have  been  built  on  a  very  slender  basis. 
It  would  seem  that  at  least  a  personal  acquaintance  with  the  disease 
ought  to  be  requisite  to  writing  on  such  a  perplexing  subject,  yet  even 
this  does  not  appear  to  have  been  thought  necessary  in  all  cases,  those 
who  knew  the  least  having  often  expressed  their  opinions  with  the  most 
confidence.  In  connection  with  my  field  studies,  I  have  endeavored 
to  fiud,  read,  and  sift  the  whole  of  this  voluminous  and  incongru- 
ous mass  of  writing,  and  in  the  preceding  pages  I  have  presented 
all  that  seems  pertinent  to  the  question  of  history  and  distribution. 
Wherever  possible,  the  writers  have  been  allowed  to  tell  their  story  in 
their  owu  way,  only  such  portions  being  suppressed  as  seemed  foolish, 
irrelevant,  contradictory,  or  untrustworthy.  Two  reasons  led  me  to 
quote  rather  than  summarize  and  speak  ex  cathedra  :  (1)  The  inaccessi- 
bility of  a  very  considerable  portion  of  the  early  literature,  some  of 
which  has  been  misquoted  frequently.  (2)  A  feeling,  shared  in  com- 
mon, I  doubt  not,  with  many  others,  that  statements  are  more  certainly 
to  be  depended  upon  when  safely  inclosed  between  quotation  marks 
thau  when  condensed  or  paraphrased. 

Among  the  facts  which  I  believe  to  be  well  established  by  this  in- 
quiry are : 

(1)  Tliat  yellows  has  frequently  been  confounded  with  other  diseases 
of  the  peach,  especially  in  New  Jersey,  where  the  borer  and  the  root 
aphis  are  very  prevalent. 

(2)  That  genuine  peach  yellows  appeared  in  the  vicinity  of  Philadel- 
phia prior  to  1791. 

(3)  That  since  179 L  the  country  has  never  been  entirely  free  from  this 
disease. 

(4)  That  it  was  prevalent  on  the  Atlantic  coast  long  before  it  appeared 
in  the  West. 

[0)  Tiiat  the  area  of  its  action  has  extended  northeast,  north,  and 
northwest  much  more  rapidly  than  south. 

(G)  That  it  is  now  more  or  less  prevalent  from  Massachusetts  to 
Georgia  and  westw.ird  to  Lake  Michigan  and  the  Mississippi. 

(7)  That  the  disease  spreads  from  centers,  usually  appearing  first  in 
localities  thickly  set  witb  orchards. 

(8)  That  the  first  cases  of  yellows  in  any  district  are  usually,  if  not 
always,  in  young  trees  imported  from  infected  localities. 

(9)  That  everywhere  it  is  the  same  destructive  malady. 

Some  deductions  which  may  be  accepted  provisionally  and  with  more 
or  loss  caution  are: 

(1)  The  disease  is  confined  to  the  United  States. 


84  SPECIAL    REPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

(2)  It  is  absent  from  the  Gulf  States  and  from  those  west  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi. 

(3)  There  have  been  great  outbreaks  of  the  disease,  e.  g.,  1791, 1806-'07, 
1S17-'21,  l845-'58,  1874-'78,  188G- 87-'8S,  followed,  apparently,  by  pe- 
riods of  comparative  immunity. 

II.— CHARACTERLSTICS  OF  PEACH  YELLOWS. 

In  the  preceding  pages,  while  dealing  with  the  history  and  distribu- 
tion of  peach  yellows,  I  have  assumed  it  to  be  a  specific  disease.  Is  it 
really  so,  or  is  it  only  a  sort  of  marasmus,  due  to  various  causes  and 
itself  as  variable  as  the  conditions  which  produce  it?  In  other  words, 
is  the  name  yellows  a  misnomer  and  the  disease  a  nonentity,  as  some 
would  have  us  believe,  or  is  there  a  well-defined  set  of  symptoms  to 
which  this  term  may  properly  apply  ? 

By  the  term  specific  we  mean  ordinarily  a  disease  which  runs  a  defi- 
nite course  and  is  characterized  by  a  more  or  less  peculiar  set  of  symp- 
toms, clearly  distinguishing  it  from  other  maladies.  Whether  we  know 
much,  little,  or  nothing  of  the  cause  of  a  specific  disease,  of  one  thing  we 
are  never  in  doubt:  it  begins,  progresses,  and  ends  in  a  definite  way; 
it  can  be  defined;  it  is  a  genuine  disease.  Although  in  different  indi- 
viduals th8re  may  be  peculiarities  due  to  idiosyncrasy  or  to  unknown 
causes,  yet  in  its  broad,  essential  features  the  disease  is  the  same  in  all 
individuals,  so  that  from  the  careful  study  of  a  few  typical  cases  we  can 
readily  predict  what  will  be  the  general  course  of  the  disease  in  any 
number  of  other  cases.  Instances  of  such  diseases  readily  occur  to  all, 
e.g.,  in  man,  consumption,  small  pox,  diphtheria  ;  in  the  lower  animals, 
anthrax,  glanders,  swine  plague ;  in  plants,  smuts,  rusts,  mildews. 
Each  of  these  diseases  is  characterized  by  a  very  definite  set  of  symp- 
toms, so  that  we  are  in  no  great  danger  of  mistaking  one  for  another. 

Unquestionably  by  the  term  yellows  much  confusion  has  arisen,  dif- 
ferent persons  having  used  it  to  convey  different  ideas.  By  this  expres- 
sion some  have  meant  simply  the  results  of  starvation,  or  the  effect  of 
very  wet  subsoils;  others,  no  doubt,  have  had  in  miiul  that  stunting 
peculiar  to  trees  infested  by  root-aphides;  others  again,  the  eft'ects  of 
the  peach  tree  borer.  By  the  term  yellows  I  mean  none  of  these  things, 
though  any  one  of  them  may  cause  the  foliage  to  become  yellow,  and 
though  any  or  all  of  them  may  be  found  in  the  tree  along  with  genuine 
yellows,  just  as  a  person  may  at  the  same  time  have  measles  and  whoop- 
ing-cough, scarlet  fever  and  diphtheria,  or  consumption  and  ague. 

Peach  yellows  as  it  occurs  in  Michigan,  and  as  I  saw  it  in  hundreds 
of  trees  in  many  orchards  in  Maryland  and  Delaware  iu  18S7  and  18SS, 
is  a  disease  of  haste  and  waste ;  the  fruit  ripens  too  soon;  the  buds 
Ijush  too  soon;  assimilation  is  disturbed  ;  the  stored  starch  and  other 
food  materials  are  wasted  by  excessive  and  unnatural  growth  ;  and  the 
entire  vitality  of  the  tree  is  exhausted  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  sea- 
sons. 


SYMPTOMS   OF   YELLOWS.  85 

FJealthy  peaches  grow  soinowliat  slowly  until  a  tew  days  before  tlie 
time  of  their  maturity  ;  then  they  increase  in  size  rapidly,  and  all  ripen 
at  about  the  same  time,  this  time  varying  with  the  latitude,  but  being 
quite  constant  for  the  same  variety  in  any  given  locality.  Upon  the 
variability  of  different  varieties,  as  to  time  of  ripening  and  the  con- 
staucy  of  the  same  variety,  depends  the  [)each  season  and  the  whole 
peach  industry.  For  example,  in  middle  latitudes  of  the  eastern  United 
States  the  peach  grower  knows  to  a  certainty  that  he  may  expect  the 
Early  Louise  or  Early  Rivers  to  bo  ripe  at  a  given  date  in  July;  the 
Mountain  Rose  and  Crawford's  Early  at  two  givxn  dates  in  August;  the 
Old  Mixon,  Stump,  Crawford's  Late,  Smock,  Bilyeu's,  etc.,  at  success- 
ively later  dates.  Consequently,  in  planting  his  orchards  he  takes  great 
])ains  to  select  these  varieties  or  others  which  mature  in  the  same  way 
one  after  another.  To  such  an  extent  is  this  now  carried  that  in  the 
more  favored  localities,  such  as  Maryland  and  Delaware,  the  ''peach 
season"  begins  early  in  July  and  lasts  until  mid-October,  there  being 
between  these  dates  a  nearly  unbroken  succession  of  varieties.  In  a 
given  latitude  each  one  of  these  many  varieties  ripens,  year  aftefr  year, 
so  nearly  at  a  given  date  that  months  in  advance  the  grower  can  tell 
to  within  a  very  few  days  at  what  time  it  will  be  necessary  to  pick  and 
market  any  variety,  and  can  arrange  all  his  work  accordingly.  Soil, 
situation,  and  weather  exert  some  influence,  e.  g.,  peaches  on  light,  warm 
soil  usually  ripen  a  few  days  in  advance  of  those  on  clay. 

Manifestly,  if  these  varieties  should  ripen  out  of  season  or  at  nearly 
the  same  time,  either  the  markets  would  be  glutted  and  the  price  of 
peaches  would  fall  below  the  cost  of  production,  or  else  the  fruit,  unex- 
pectedly ripe,  would  rot  upon  the  trees  for  lack  of  suflQcient  help  to 
pick  it.    In  either  event  great  losses  would  result. 

This  is  very  nearly  what  happens  when  an  orchard  is  attacked  by 
yellows.    The  disease  is  characterized  by  the  following  symptoms : 

FIRST  YEAR  OF  ATTACK. 

The  diseased  fruit  ripens  prematurely,  and  frequently  in  such  a  way 
that  varieties,  ordinarily  maturing  several  weeks  apart,  are  ripe  all  at 
once,  often  quite  unexpectedly.  There  is  no  time  to  gather  this  fruit, 
even  if  it  were  perfect,  and  much  of  it  decays  on  the  trees.  It  is  also 
rejected  by  drying  and  canning  establishments  and  by  commission  mer- 
chants, except  in  years  of  scarcity. 

Diseased  trees  exhibit  great  variability  as  to  time  of  ripening  their 
fruit.  Sometimes  this  period  precedes  the  normal  time  of  ripening  by 
only  two  or  three  days;  sometimes  it  precedes  it  by  as  long  a  period  as 
six  weeks  or  even  two  months,  in  which  case  healthy  peaches  on  the 
same  tree  or  on  adjacent  ones  are  not  half  grown.  As  a  rule  it  may  bo 
said  that  such  peaches  ripen  at  least  two  or  three  weeks  in  advance  of 
the  proper  time. 

These  prematurely  ripened  peaches  differ  from  healthy  vjues  very 


8G  SPECIAL    REPORT    0\    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

materially  in  color.  Ouce  seen  they  can  uever  be  mistakeu.  Gener- 
ally tbe}'  Lave  more  color  than  healthy  peaches,  but  the  essential  dif- 
ference lies  less  in  the  amount  of  color  than  in  the  peculiarity  of  its 
distribution.  Instead  of  being  delicatel3^  punctate  with  minute  crimson 
dots  or  imbued  with  uniform  masses  of  color,  like  the  ruddy  cheek  of  a 
healthy  peach,  the  surface  is  coarsely  blotched  with  red  and  purple 
spots,  of  variable  diameter  but  usually  not  less  than  one-sixteenth  of 
an  inch  across.  These  give  to  the  peach  a  mottled  or  speckled  appear- 
ance unlike  that  produced  by  any  other  disease,  and  so  entirely  different 
from  the  healthy  appearance,  that  the  yellows  might  in  many  cases  be 
diagnosed  from  a  very  small  fragment  of  the  skin  of  a  single  peach 
(see  Photograph  XIII  and  colored  plates  XXXIV  and  XXXV). 
Sometimes  these  spots  are  infrequent;  sometimes  thej-  are  very  numer- 
ous. Usually  they  are  somewhat  sharply  defined  on  a  much  lighter 
background,  but  sometimes  they  coalesce,  giving  to  the  whole  peach 
a  dark  crimson  or  purple  color,  or,  more  rarely,  a  brown  purple  or 
dull  red. 

These  red  or  purple  discolorations  are  not  confined  to  the  skin  of  the 
l^each,  but  extend  into  its  flesh,  appearing  on  tangential  section  as 
roundish  crimson  spots,  and  on  radial  section  as  more  or  less  irregular 
dots,  streaks,  splashes,  or  veins  of  color.  These  streaks  extend  en- 
tirely through  the  flesh  from  pit  to  skin,  or  only  jiart  way  in  or  out 
^see  sections  in  colored  plates).  Always  there  is  more  than  the  usual 
amount  of  crimson  color  about  the  pit.  Sometimes,  especially  in  white- 
fleshed  peaches  like  Troth's  Early,  Mountain  Hose,  and  Old  Mixou,  the 
whole  interior  is  mottled  with  the  brightest  crimson,  or  becomes  a  nearly 
uniform  mass  of  this  deep  color. 

In  some  instances,  in  yellow  varieties,  particularly  in  Maryland,  the 
flesh  of  the  prematures  was  not  very  high  colored  ;  and  in  two  or  three 
cases  I  found  scarcely  a  trace  of  crimson-spotted  flesh.  Xoyes  Darling 
also  mentions  one  instance  in  which  the  usual  high  color  was  wanting, 
the  only  exception  he  ever  found. 

The  taste  of  peaches  ripened  [)rematurely  by  this  disease  varies  con- 
siderably. Usually  the^' are  insipid  and  worthless  for  eating;  occasion- 
ally they  retain  a  nearly  normal  flavor,  and  not  rarely  the^'  are  slightly* 
bitter  or  mawkish. 

Such  peaches  seem  to  decay  more  quickly  than  healthy  ones.  Judg- 
ing from  my  own  experience,  the  palatable  ones  are  not  injurious  even 
when  eaten  in  large  quantities.  ]\Iost  prematures,  however,  are  unfit 
to  eat. 

If  the  tree  is  in  bearing,  this  prematurely  ripe,  red-spotted  fruit  is 
the  first  symptom  of  the  disease,  at  least  the  first  unmistakable  symp- 
tom. Xot  infrequently  out  of  several  hundred  peaches  upon  a  tree 
I  saw  the  disease  in  one  or  two  only,  and  very  often  it  was  manifest 
only  in  the  peaches  on  one  or  two  small  limbs  ;  sometimes,  however,  the 
disease  showed  itself  simultaneously  in  peaches  on  all  parts  of  the  tree. 


SYMPTOIM^;    OK    VELI.OWf^.  87 

afifectiug  uearly  or  <iuit.e  all  of  tlicin,  the  disea.sc  a[)p(jaiiui;  to  have  at- 
tacked all  parts  of  the  tree  at  ouce.  Occasionally  1  saw  trees  loaded 
almost  to  breaking-  with  such  peaches  and  they  were  as  large  as  those 
on  healthy  trees. 

When  the  tree  had  been  healthy  the  previous  season,  and  especially 
when  the  diseased  peaches  were  contined  to  one  limb  or  to  a  few  limbs, 
1  found  the  branches  and  foliage  perfectly  normal  in  appearance.  In- 
deed, judged  solely  by  their  foliage  and  young-  wood,  many  of  the  dis- 
eased trees  which  I  examined  in  Maryland  and  Delaware  in  July  and 
August,  1887,  would  have  been  pronounced  very  healthy,  the  only  symp- 
toms I  could  find  being  the  prematurely  ripened,  red-spotted  fruit  (see 
colored  plate  XXXIV). 

Upon  some  of  these  trees  at  this  time,  and  later  in  the  season  upon 
many  others,  I  found  young  shoots  developing  into  a  most  strange  and 
unnatural  growth.  On  many  trees  this  was  very  striking,  filling  the 
whole  interior  of  the  tree-top.  To  it  the  expression  "  fungus  growth  " 
is  often  applied  by  peach-growers,  although  it  is  a  part  of  the  tree  itself 
and  no  fungus.  This  abnormal  growth  is  so  iieculiar  and  so  character- 
istic of  yellows  that  it  deserves  to  be  considered  at  some  length  as  the 
next  morbid  manifestation.  This  growth  appears  to  be  a  secondary 
symptom,  although  upon  barren  trees  it  may  be  the  first  to  appear,  as  it 
is  often  the  first  to  attract  attention.  My  reason  for  thinking  it  is  a  secon- 
dary symptom  is  that  while  limbs  often  bear  premature  peaches  for  one 
season  without  showing  this  diseased  growth,  they  never  in  anj' instance 
send  forth  this  growth  and  at  the  same  time  or  afterward  produce  health}^ 
peaches.  Having  once  borne  these  starved  shoots  they  always  there- 
after bear  diseased  iiea,che,s,  if  thev  betu*  any.  This  growth  consists  of 
more  or  less  de^)aupfefate  shodts  which  are  often  much  branched,  so  as 
to  be  suggestive  of  what  the  Germans  call  "Hexenbesen"  or  witch 

to  be  caused  by  fungus  attacks. 
there  is  a  marked  prolepsis.  These 
shoots  may  appear  upon  any  part  of  the  tree,  and  often  are  developed 
numerously  upon  the  trunk  and  juain  limbs,  from  obscure  or  adventi- 
tious buds.  Most  commonly  I  found  them  growing  out  close  together 
upon  the  upper  side  along  the  entire  length  of  a  main  limb,  or  of  several 
such  limbs,  giving  the  interior  of  the  tree-top  a  very  peculiar  ap- 
pearance, entirely  unlike  that  caused  by  any  other  disease  (see  Photo. 
VIII).  Where  these  shoots  appeared  numerously  upon  a  limb  they 
were  frequently  unbranched  and  only  a  few  inches  in  length,  at  least  in 
July  and  August.  More  often,  especially  late  in  the  season,  I  found 
them  branched  (see  Photos.  I  and  III).  In  some  instances  these  dis- 
eased shoots  and  their  branches  were  very  long  and  willowy.  Often 
the  leaves  also  suggested  the  willow. 

ThG  manner  of  this  branching  was  to  me  a  striking  peculiarity,  and 
one  wliich  I  had  never  seen  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  disease. 
There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  an  excessive  duplication  of  shoots.    Shoots, 


brooms,  some  of  which   are  known 
There  is  not  only  a''p6ry^ladia,  but  tl 


88  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

it  is  true,  are  likely  to  occur  to  some  exteut  upon  tbe  truuk  aud  luaiu 
limbs  of  all  robust  trees,  but  never  in  such  numbers,  nor  brauched  in 
tbe  manner  to  be  described,  nor  with  such  a  starved  appearauce.  Not 
only  are  the  shoots  dwarfed  and  sickly  but  their  growth  is  extremely 
hurried,  *'.  e.,  in  their  leaf  axils  they  develop  buds  which  the  same  season 
give  rise  to  diminutive  branches,  and  in  turn  these  branches  in  the 
same  way  give  rise  to  others.  \"ery  often  I  found  that  three  sets  of 
branches,  and  in  some  instances  four  or  even  five,  had  developed  on 
these  shoots  as  the  result  of  a  few  months'  growth.  These  branches  are 
very  clearly  shown  in  some  of  the  pliotographs  accompanying  this  re- 
port, as  may  be  seen  by  comparing  them  with  contemporary  healthy 
growths.  For  instance,  Photograph  XIV,  from  a  healthy  tree,  shows  two 
unbrauched  shoot  axes  which  are  strictly  comparable  with  the  much- 
branched  diseased  growth  of  No.  II.  The  tissues  of  these  branches  are 
very  poorly  developed  and  their  buds  are  diminutive  and  very  often 
dead  before  thej'  enter  the  winter,  differing  in  these  respects  from  the 
few  witch  brooms  I  have  had  opportunity  to  examine.  Moreover,  there 
IS  never  any  hypertrophy  of  the  branches  which  bear  them.  The  foli- 
age of  such  shoots  is  often  blanched  or  pale  yellowish  green,  and  never 
of  a  vigorous  green.  It  is  abundant  but  very  much  dwarfed,  the  best 
developed  leaves  being  frequently  less  than  3  inches  long  and  propor- 
tionately narrow,  and  many  of  the  smaller  ones  being  less  than  an  inch 
in  length,  while  full-grown,  healthy  leaves  are  from  G  to  9  inches  in 
length  by  1:^  to  2  inches  in  breadth.  Frequently  by  failure  of  the  in- 
ternodes  to  properly  lengthen  and  by  the  excessive  production  of 
branches  the  growth  becomes  considerably  tufted,  much  more  so  than 
is  shown  in  any  of  the  accompanying  photographs,  except  those  of 
the  Georgia  specimens,  Nos.  XVI  and  XVII. 

As  autumn  passes  away  these  diseased  shoots  manifest  no  signs  of 
preparation  for  winter  (see  Photo.  V).  There  appears  to  be  something 
analogous  to  Avhat  in  animals  would  be  called  a  lack  of  innervation. 
The  ordinary  functions  of  the  plant  are  disturbed  or  set  aside  altogether. 
Growth  goes  on  without  much  reference  to  the  needs  of  the  plant  or 
the  time  of  the  year,  and  is  at  the  same  time  excessive  and  imperfect. 
In  late  October  and  in  November,  when  healthy  trees  had  dropped 
their  leaves  and  were  ready  for  winter  weather,  such  shoots  were  still 
growing. 

Although  these  diseased  shoots  appear  to  be  a  secondary  symptom, 
yet  they  may  follow  the  diseased  fruit  speedily.  In  autumn  I  saw 
them  on  many  trees  which  were  not  diseased  the  previous  year,  or  at 
least  showed  no  external  manifestation  of  disease;  and  in  nearly  all 
such  cases  they  were  secondary  growths  from  obscure  buds,  first  appear- 
ing in  June  or  July  or  later  in  the  year,  the  primary,  terminal,  or  spring 
growth  being  usually  the  picture  of  health,  as  regards  both  branches 
and  foliage.  However,  this  was  not  uniformly  the  case,  for  occasionally 
in  August  I  found  terminal  shoots  which  had  become  much  branched 


SYMPTOMS    OF    YELLOWS,  89 

antl  were  otherwise  diseased  exactly  like  those  shoots  which  grew  from 
obscure  buds  ou  the  branches  or  trunk  (compare  Photo.  II  with  I,  III, 
or  IV).  This  manitestatiou  of  the  disease  upou  terminal  shoots  appears 
not  to  have  been  observed  very  generally.  A.  J.  Downing  says  it  never 
occurs;*  A.  G.  Gully  never  saw  it.'-  Possibly,  it  is  more  prevalent  in 
the  South.  In  Georgia  it  occurs  early  in  the  season  and  appears  to  be 
the  common  form  of  the  malady,  whole  trees  of  robust  growth  being 
diseased  nearly  or  quite  throughout,  as  shown  in  Photos.  XVI  and 
XVII. 

In  September  and  October  I  also  saw  not  a  few  yellows  infected 
trees,  on  which  all  the  buds  of  certain  terminal  shoots  had  just  begun 
to  develop  into  branches,  although  these  shoot  axes  had  previously  ap- 
peared healthy  throughout.  Often,  much  earlier  in  the  season,  I  saw 
robust  shoots  from  the  trunk  and  main  limbs,  the  lower  parts  of  which 
showed  every  indication  of  health,  the  leaves  being  large  and  dark 
green  and  the  wood  and  bark  all  that  could  be  desired ;  yet,  as  growth 
progressed,  these  lusty  shoots,  some  of  them  4  or  5  feet  long,  developed 
at  the  apex  into  a  complex  of  repeatedly  ramified,  feeble  branches  cov- 
ered with  innumerable  diminutive,  pale-green,  willowy  leaves.  Some- 
times from  a  healthy-looking  main  limb  grew  out  tsvo  yearling  shoots 
within  an  inch  of  each  other,  one  of  them  being  diseased  in  the  manner 
described  and  the  other  being  unbranched  and  perfectly  healthy,  with 
vigorous  dark-green  foliage.  Such  shoots  were  upon  trees  but  recently 
attacked. 

The  relation  of  the  diseased  to  the  healthy  portions  of  the  tree  were 
in  some  instances  quite  peculiar.  The  following  are  some  of  the  more 
interesting  cases,  observed  in  August  and  September,  1887: 

Occasionally  the  diseased  shoots  grew  out  of  the  trunk  or  from  the 
main  limbs,  while  nowhere  else  were  there  any  indications  of  disease, 
such  trees  being  barren. 

Sometimes  the  diseased  shoots  grew  out  immediately  above  or  imme- 
diately below  a  healthy  branch. 

Midway  of  its  length  a  diseased  branch  sent  out  well-developed  shoots, 
then  two  years  old,  which  bore  healthy  leaves  of  normal  size.  This 
branch  may  have  become  diseased  the  previous  year. 

Midway  of  a  healthy  branch  grew  out  a  very  characteristic  yellows 
tuft.  Lower  down  grew  out  several  branches,  large  and  small,  bearing 
full  grown,  dark-green  leaves,  while  above  the  sickly  tuft  the  braucii 
divided  four  times  and  the  sub-branches  ramified  considerably,  all  the 
parts  bearing  healthy  leaves. 

On  one  part  of  a  tree  the  limbs  bore  very  healthy  foliage  and  sent 
out  from  their  base  exceedingly  stocky  yearling  shoots,  which  were  4 
to  5  feet  long  and  bore  large,  healthy,  dark-green  leaves.  One  limb, 
however,  of  this  tree,  also  bearing  healthy  spring  foliage,  sent  out  along 

'  Fruits  and  Fruit  Trees  of  Amtrica.     N.  Y.,  John  Wiley  «fc  Sou,  18(35,  p.  59d. 
-  Annual  Report  of  the  Sec'i/  of  the  Mich.  State  Pom.  Soc.,  1878,  p.  258. 


90  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS 

its  braucbe.s,  iVom  obscure  butl.s,  uiauy  of  tlic  diaractoristic,  secoudary, 
small,  starved,  light  green  twigs. 

Prematurely  ripe  peaches  were  sometimes  found  upon  every  main 
limb  mingled  with  liealtliy  green  ones. 

A  tree  bore  premature  peaches  on  every  main  limb  and  put  forth  a 
hundred  or  more  of  the  starved,  secondary  slioots  from  obscure  buds  on 
the  body  and  limbs,  and  yet  showed  no  sign  whatever  of  disease  in  the 
spring  foliage  or  in  the  growth  of  any  of  the  terminal  shoots,  every 
one  of  these  being  well  developed  and  provided  with  full  grown,  fine 
looking  leaves. 

In  another  instance  these  pale,  sickly  shoots  came  out  unbrauched 
(August)  singly  all  over  the  tree,  except  on  the  trunk,  the  extreme  base 
of  the  nmin  limbs,  and  the  shoot-axes  of  the  season.  This  tree  was  six 
years  old  and  well  developed.  If  it  hung  full  of  healthy  peaches  the 
previous  year,  as  I  have  reason  to  believe  from  the  assurances  of  the 
owner  and  his  tenant,  then  it  must  have  become  diseased  some  time 
between  September,  1880,  and  June  or  July,  1887,  unless  we  assume  that 
the  tree  may  be  diseased  for  some  time  without  external  manifestation. 

As  already  noted,  premature  peaches  were  frequently  observed  upon 
branches  .apparently  sound.' 

In  one  instance  numerous  secondary  shoots  grew  out  erect,  along  the 
whole  length  of  the  branches  much  as  if  the  tree  had  been  defoliated 
and  were  making  a  desperate  effort  to  get  new  leaves;  yet  the  termi- 
inal  shoot-axes  of  this  tree  (the  spring  shoots)  had  in  every  instance 
made  a  good  growth  of  1  to  2  feet,  and  bore  full-grown,  dark-green 
leaves,  except  on  some  small  branches  in  the  center  of  the  tree  where 
they  were  beginning  to  look  yellowish-green  and  unhealthy.  In  this 
tree  even  the  terminal  shoots  were  beginning  (August  16)  to  put  out 
miserable,  starved  branches,  1  to  2  inches  long,  from  the  axils  of  their 
lower  leaves;  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  may  have  been  affected  in 
some  j)art  the  previous  season. 

Thesf  two  symptoms — prematurely  ripe,  red-spotted  peaches;  and 
pale,  diseased,  dwarfed  shoots,  strongly  inclined  to  prolepsis  and  poly- 
cladia — are  the  only  ones  I  could  find  in  trees  that  were  healthy  the 
year  before.  Most  frequently  both  symjitoms  were  present.  In  some 
l)arts  of  the  country,  however,  the  diseased  shoots  do  not  appear  so 
abundantly,  and  sometimes  not  at  all  until  the  second  year.  Perhaps 
seasonal  or  cliinatic  peculiarities  may  control  this.  They  are  certainly 
more  numerous  in  rainy  than  in  dry  seasons. 

.Si:CO.\])   YEAR   OF   ATTACK. 

The  symptoms  of  the  second  year  include  those  of  the  first,  and  there 
are  several  additional  ones. 

The  fruit  is  usually  smaller  and  less  abundant,  and  the  kernel  is  often 
abortive.     The  llavor  of  the  fruit  is  also  very  inferior.     It  prematures 

'  The  foliage  of  many  such  brauclies  was  observed  to  be  yellow  aud  badly  diseased 
iu  1888,  and  generally  the  shoot-axes  of  tl'at  season  were  also  much  dwarfed. 


SYMl^TOMS    OF    YELLOWS.  91 

with  the  same  general  appearance  as  the  first  season.  Quite  often  the 
tree  is  barren,  if  diseased  throughout.  1  have  observed  many  such 
instances. 

Tbe  diseased  shoots  continue  to  grow  from  the  affected  limbs,  those 
ot  the  previous  year,  if  any  grew,  being  for  the  most  part  dead  (see 
Photos.  VIII,  IX,  and  X). 

There  is  also  a  progressive  development  of  the  disease,  more  and  more 
ot  the  tree  becoming  involved.  In  other  words,  it  appears  first  to  be  a 
local  disease;  then,  later  on,  a  general  one.  Quite  often, the  first  sea- 
son, only  one  limb  or  a  few  limbs  are  diseased  (left  side  of  Photo.  VIII), 
but  additional  limbs  are  invariably  affected  the  second  year.  I  know 
of  no  exception  to  this.  The  first  year  of  attack  it  is  comparatively 
infrequent  to  find  a  tree  diseased  in  all  its  parts  ;  the  second  year  it  is 
somewhat  rare  to  find  many  sound  branches;  often  there  are  none 
(see  Photos.  VIII,  IX,  and  X). 

Another  symi)tom,  not  very  noticeable  the  first  year,  is  the  dwarfed, 
yellowish  or  reddish-brown,  and  more  or  less  curled  and  inrolled  ap- 
pearance of  the  entire  foliage  of  the  tree,  or  at  least  of  all  that  on  limbs 
diseased  the  previous  j'ear.  This  appearance  renders  diseased  orchards 
idainly  distinguishable  at  some  distance,  and  no  doubt  gave  rise  to  the 
name  yellows,  as  applied  to  this  disease.  At  this  stage  the  most  care- 
less observer  is  aware  that  something  is  wrong  with  the  orchard.  The 
trees  have  a  most  miserable,  sickly,  languishing  appearance.  Some 
curling  and  inrolling  of  the  leaves  is  undoubtedly  due  to  mites  or  other 
leaf  insects,  but  I  could  not  satisfy  myself  that  all  of  it  was  so  caused. 
It  should  also  be  stated  that  the  leaves  on  the  diseased,  secondary  or 
summer  shoots  do  not  ordinarily  show  this  rolling  and  curling.  Fre- 
quently there  are  brown  or  red  spots  upon  the  foliage,  but  this  is  not  a 
constant  symptom  and  appears  to  be  due  to  a  leaf  fungus  {Cercospora), 
which  finds  in  the  diseased  leaves  its  most  favorable  condition  for 
growth. 

THIRD  AXD  LATER  YEARS. 

The  diseased  tree  rarely  dies  the  second  year  of  attack  and  rarely 
lives  beyond  tbe  fourth  or  fifth  year.  It  is  generally  worthless  after 
the  second  year,  L  c,  after  all  the  branches  have  once  borne  the  prema- 
ture peaches;  somtimes  it  becomes  entirely  diseased  and  worthless  the 
first  year  of  attack.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  remedies,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  left  to  itself  the  diseased  tree  invariably  dies.  It  is  not  more 
likely  to  recover  than  is  a  consumptive  animal.  I  have  heard  it  said 
that  such  trees  sometimes  recover,  but  none  under  my  own  observation 
have  done  so,  nor  can  I  find  satisfactory  evidence  of  any  such  recovery. 

The  symptoms  of  these  later  years  are  those  previously  mentioned, 
to  which  may  be  added  some  additional  ones  due  apparently  to  an  in- 
creasing lack  of  vitality.  One  of  these  is  the  death  of  large  limbs  and, 
finally,  of  the  entire  tree  (see  Photo.  XI).  Sometimes  as  early  as  tiie  sec- 
ond year,  and  quite  often  the  third  or  fourth  year,  the  only  sympto'Jis  of 


*92  SPECIAL    KEPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

life  exhibited  by  the  tree  area  few  very  feeble,  dwarfish,  broom-like  tufts 
of  branches,  developed  from  obscure  buds,  here  and  there  upon  the 
otherwise  naked  lirabs  (see  also  Photo.  Ill,  which  may  be  compared 
with  XIV  and  XV,  from  healthy  growths  1S87  and  of  1888).  These 
branches  are  clothed  with  very  depauperate  leaves  of  a  greenish-yellow 
or  red  dish -brown. 

Some  additional  minor  symptoms  attracted  my  attention,  but  not 
being  certain  that  they  are  constant  1  present  them  here  as  suggestions 
rather  than  final  conclusions. 

The  diseased  shoots  appear  very  brittle.  I  first  noticed  this  in  trying 
to  make  some  withes,  and  afterwards  found  it  nearly  or  quite  constant. 
This  recalls  a  statement  made  by  Noyes  Darling  that  diseased  branches 
lose  their  elasticity  and  sway  in  the  wind  with  "  a  stiff,  jerking  motion."' 
I  did  not  meet  this  statement  until  my  field  work  for  1887  was  com- 
pleted,  but,  in  connection  with  the  brittleness,  I  am  inclined  to  give 
some  weight  to  it,  particularly  as  Noyes  Darling  seems  to  me  to  have 
been  the  most  acute  observer  and  the  most  logical  thinker  who  has  ever 
written  upon  peach  yellows. 

In  diseased  limbs  I  also  found  that  the  cambium-cylinder  was  active 
very  late  in  the  fall,  as  might  be  expected  from  the  prolonged  growth 
of  leaves  and  shoots  already  mentioned.  This  activity  of  the  cambium 
continued  long  after  it  had  ceased  upon  the  neighboring  healthy  trees. 
This  was  indicated  by  the  ease  with  which  the  bark  could  be  peeled. 
In  Kent  County,  Del.,  in  all  cases,  the  bark  of  healthy  trees  stuck 
tightly  and  could  not  be  peeled  at  all  after  the  last  of  August.  From 
diseased  branches  in  the  same  orchards  long  strips  of  bark  could  read- 
ily be  separated  as  late  as  September  20,  leaving  exposed  the  smooth, 
moist  surface  of  the  wood. 

I  should  expect  to  find  these  symptoms  correlated  with  peculiarities 
of  microscopic  structure,  some  of  which  might  perhaj^s  prove  of  diag- 
nostic value,  but  up  to  this  time  I  have  not  been  able  to  make  the  nec- 
essary number  of  careful  observations.  What  induces  this  prolonged 
activity  of  the  cambium  remains  to  be  determined.  It  is  apparently 
something  in  the  nature  of  an  irritant. 

Other  abnormal  appearances,  e.  g.,  the  black  heart- wood,  mentioned 
as  symptomatic  by  various  observers,  and  the  cracked  and  discolored 
bark  found  by  Professor  Penhallow,  were  objects  of  diligent  search  and 
were  observed  occasionally.  However,  not  having  found  these  two 
symptoms  constant  in  yellows-infected  trees,  and  having  found  the  same 
in  many  trees  not  diseased  by  yellows,  and  even  in  localities  where  yel- 
lows has  never  appeared,  I  am  constrained  to  rule  them  out  as  not  pe- 
culiar to  this  disease.  I  think  peach  stems  are  apt  to  become  black- 
hearted by  severe  freezing  or  from  very  slight  injuries,  if  at  all  exposed 
to  the  weather.  The  appearance  of  the  bark  on  trunks  and  main  limbs 
was  noted  with  great  care  in  hundreds  of  trees,  diseased  and  healthy. 
In  the  early  stages  of  the  disease  in  almost  all  the  younger  trees,  i.  e., 

'  The  Cultivator,  Allxiny,  N.  Y.,  1845,  pp.  CO-Cri. 


SYMPTOMS    OF    YELLOWS.  93 

those  uutler  six  years  of  age,  the  outer  bark  was  smooth  aud  fair.  Iq 
older  trees  the  bark  is  uaturally  more  or  less  rough  and  cracked.  I 
couhl  find  nothing  in  color  or  cracking  of  the  bark  which  appeared  to 
me  to  be  of  diagnostic  value,  although  in  some  cases,  on  shoots  of  but 
a  few  years'  growth,  the  production  of  cork  in  irregular  patches  ap- 
l)eared  to  be  excessive.  Whether  this  is  a  peculiarity  of  any  impor- 
tance remains  to  be  determined. 

Since,  in  spite  of  all  that  has  been  said  and  written  ou  the  subject, 
there  is  still  much  confusion  in  the  minds  of  peach-growers  as  to  ex- 
actly what  constitutes  yellows,  I  have  thrown  my  conception  of  it 
into  the  following  propositions,  the  symptoms  being  noted  in  order  of 
appearance ; 

DIGEST  OF   SYMPTOMS. 

(1)  Prematurely  ripe,  red  spotted  fruit. 

(2)  Development  upon  the  trunk  and  branches,  which  bear,  or  have 
borne,  the  diseased  peaches  of  secondary  or  summer  shoots,  often  in 
great  numbers,  and  always  dwarfed  and  feeble  in  appearance. 

(3)  A  very  marked  tendency  of  the  buds  on  the&e  secondary  shoots 
to  develo])  the  same  season,  forming  sometimes  in  this  way  within  a  few 
mouths  secondary,  tertiary,  quartan,  and  quintan  branches. 

(4)  The  appearance  of  the  disease  the  next  spring  in  the  entire  growth 
of  the  tree,  or  at  least  of  the  diseased  parts — the  shoot-axes  being 
shortened  and  the  foliage  dwarfed  and  sickly,  of  a  yellowish  or  reddish- 
brown  color,  and  with  a  greater  or  less  tendency  to  curl  from  end  to 
end,  and  to  roll  sidewise,  so  that  the  lower  surface  becomes  the  convex 
outer  surface.  Sometimes,  however,  the  disease  affects  the  terminal 
shoots  the  same  autumn  causing  the  winter  buds  to  develop  either  be- 
fore or  after  the  leaves  liave  fallen. 

(5)  A  slow  progress  of  the  disease  from  limb  to  limb,  so  that  in  one  or 
two  years,  or  at  most  three  years,  the  whole  tree  is  involved. 

(G)  Co  ordinate  with  the  progress  of  the  disease  from  part  to  part,  a 
marked  diminution  of  the  vitality  of  the  tree,  ending  in  death. 

These  are  symptoms  characteristic  of  peach  yellows,  and  they  seem 
to  me  quite  as  definite  as  those  of  any  specific  disease.  If  peach  yel- 
lows, as  I  have  seen  it  and  have  defined  it,  is  not  a  specific  disease,  due  to 
some  constant  cause  or  causes,  then  neither  is  glanders  or  anthrax^ 
or  measles  or  small-pox. 

DISEASES   MISTAKEN"   FOIt   YELLOWS. 

Having  defined  yellows,  it  will  now  be  proper  to  state  what  it  is  not ; 
i.  e.,  to  describe  somewhat  carefully  those  abnormal  appearances  for 
which  it  has  been  mistaken.  This  is  the  more  necessary  because  many 
growers,  aud  even  some  writers  upon  the  subject,  have  never  seen  gen 
nine  yellows,  and  because  some  of  these  abnormal  appearances  are 
likely  to  be  found  in  every  peach  orchard  aud  to  cause  unnecessary  ap- 
prehension. 


'  94  SPECIAL    liEPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

(1)  The  borer. — The  larva  oi  ^Egeria  exitiosa,  Say,  devours  the  inner 
cortex  of  the  tree  at  the  surface  of  the  earth,  or  iiu mediately  above  or 
below,  often  causing  extensive  destruction,  and  not  infrequently  gird- 
ling the  trunk. 

If  these  injuries  are  slight  the  tree  is  not  harmed,  but  if  they  are  ex- 
tensive there  is  a  marked  yellowing  of  the  entire  foliage,  the  leaves  being 
also  more  or  less  folded  sidewise,  upward,  along  the  midrib,  and  curled 
downward  end  to  end.  Tlie  fruit  in  some  cases  also  ripens  prematurely 
(see  Plate  XXXVl).  Thus  injured,  the  tree  presents  a  very  i?ickly  ap- 
pearance, and  generally  dies  in  a  year  or  two,  the  symptoms  being  not 
markedly  different  from  those  manifested  by  any  tree  when  some  portion 
of  the  trunk-cylinder  is  deprived  of  the  whole  or  greater  part  of  its  bark. 

This  disease  is  easily  distinguished  from  yellows.  Jf  the  foliage  is 
very  yellow,  an  examination  at  the  base  of  the  trunk  will  show  that  a 
large  part  of  the  inner  bark  has  been  destroyed,  and  will  often  discover 
the  larva  still  at  woik.  If  such  trees  are  vigorously  shaken  in  July  or 
August  the  yellow  leaves  will  fall  in  a  shower;  but  no  amount  of  shak- 
ing will  dislodge  the  leaves  of  a  tree  infected  by  the  yellows.  So  t'ghtly 
did  the  latter  stick  to  the  branches  that,  even  in  September,  when  I  under- 
took to  remove  them  from  some  of  the  much-branched  secondary  shoots, 
considerable  force  was  necessary.  Indeed  the  process  was  likened  not 
inaptly  by  one  farmer  to  jdcking  pin-feathers  from  a  starved  chicken. 

The  prematurely  ripened  fruit,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  is  natural  in  color 
and  reseml)les  that  produced  by  the  gardener's  device  of  "ringing"  or 
girdling,  being  found  only  on  nearly  or  comi)letely  girdled  trees.  It  is 
never  red  spotted,  never  associated  with  dark-green  foliage,  and  never 
connected  with  those  hasty,  much  branched  and  feeble  summer  growths 
which  are  always  found  on  trees  badly  diseased  by  vellows.  Usually 
also  this  fruit  ripens  only  a  week  or  two  in  advance  of  the  normal  time 
and  retains  its  normal  flavor.  The  only  case  in  which  the  two  diseases 
can  be  confounded  is  where  they  both  exist  in  the  same  tree. 

(2)  The  root  aphis. — A  very  shining  dark-brown  or  black  aphis,  which 
corresponds  nearly  to  Aphis  chrysanthemi,  Koch,  but  which  I  have  not 
been  able  to  identifj'  with  certainty,  infests  the  roots  of  the  peach  often 
in  such  vast  numbers  as  to  interfere  seriously  with  its  growth  or  to  kill 
it  outright.  This  insect  is  common  to  parts  of  New  Jersey,  Maryland, 
and  Delaware,  particularly  on  sandy  laud.  It  frequently  so  stunts  trees 
that  at  three  or  four  years  of  age  they  are  but  \ery  little  larger  than 
when  first  set  (compare  Photos.  XXVI  and  XXVII),  The  insect  occa- 
sionnlly  infests  whole  nurseries,  and  may  be  distributed  in  this  way. 
Possibly  this  may  be  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  peach  trees  are 
most  likely  to  suffer  from  root  aphides  the  first  year  or  the  second  year 
after  they  are  set.     Sueh  trees  are  said  to  be  •Trenched."  ^     The  foliage 


'  This  cnrious  expression  is  also  applied  to  corn  and  tobacco  which  makes  a  diseased 
or  spiiidliug  growth.  Its  use  is  apparently  as  old  as  the  settlement  of  Maryland,  the 
opprobrions  epithet  "  Frenchmen  "  liaving  been  aijplied  to  spindling  tobacco  plants 
by  the  (irst  English  settlers.     See  Clayton's  Hrr/fHrn.    London,  1688.    Force.    Vol.  III. 


DISEASES    MlSTAKtX    FOR    YELLOWS.  95 

partakes  of  the  universal  stmitiuft'  and  is  usually  somewhat  yellowisli. 
lu  districts  where  yellows  has  not  appeared  I  found  this  disease  calle*! 
by  that  name,  aud  have  no  doubt  it  has  often  been  mistaken  for  it,  par- 
ticularly in  New  Jersey.' 

There  is  no  question  but  that  the  root-aphis  has  killed  thousands  of 
trees,  and  been  in  some  sections  a  very  serious  obstacle  to  successful 
])each  culture,  although  it  is  not  so  much  to  be  dreaded  as  the  yellows. 
The  nuirked  feature  throughout  is  the  stunting,  something  which  is  not 
a  precursor  of  yellows  nor  characteristic  of  the  earlier  stages  of  that 
disease.  After  a  year  or  two  of  languishing  such  trees  also  not  infre- 
quently recover.  Upon  none  oT  them  have  I  seen  prematun^,  red-spotted 
peaches  and  the  characteristic  diseased  shoots  except  when  the  tree  was 
also  suffering  from  yellows, 

(15)  The  peach  nematode. — A  species  of  AiiguiUul/i  infests  the  roots  of 
l)each  trees  in  Florida  and  [)robabIy  also  in  some  other  ])ortions  of  the 
country',  although  I  have  never  observed  any  on  the  Cliesapeako  and 
Delaware  peninsula  or  in  the  peach  districts  of  Michigan.  This  minute 
worm  produces  knobby  enlargements  and  excrescences  on  the  smaller 
roots,  in  which  usually  the  cysts  of  the  parasite  may  be  detected.  In 
this  way  the  roots  are  often  badly  injured,  and  the  tops  become  yellow 
aud  die,  but,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  with  no  symptoms  peculiar  to  yellows. 
I  have  seen  only  the  infected  roots.  » 

(4:)  Decay  of  roots. — South  wej?t,  in  Arkansas  and  Texas,  the  peach  is 
reported  to  suffer  considerably  from  root-rot.  In  what  way  this  aft'ects 
tlie  parts  above  ground  or  whether  its  manifestations  are  likely  to  be 
mistaken  for  yellows  I  am  unable  to  say. 

(5)  Starvation. — Trees  set  upon  pure  sand  or  upon  peat  make  a  very 
feeble  growth,  although  usually  managing  to  live  for  some  time.  This 
starved  condition,  which  readily  disappears  when  suitable  fertilizers  are 
applied,  might,  possibly,  also  be  mistaken  for  yellows,  although  I  do 
not  think  it  very  likely,  as  such  soil  is  generally  well  known  to  be 
barren  and  will  not  grow  any  fruit  trees  satisfactorily.  Ci-rtaiuly  this 
trouble  would  never  be  confounded  with  yellows  by  any  person  familiar 
with  that  disease. 

(G)  Wet  «m6«o//.— Sometimes,  by  inexperienced  growers,  peach  trees 
are  set  upon  cold,  wet  soils.  If  these  trees  do  not  die  outright  they 
grow  very  slowly  aud  produce  only  dwarfed  yellowish  foliage.  I  have 
seen  such  cases  in  a  number  of  orchards,  and  believe  tlie  sickly  appear- 
ance was  due  entirely,  or  at  least  primarily,  to  the  nature  of  the  soii. 
Few  persons  would,  I  Ihink,  be  likely  to  mistake  this  for  yellows.  Th.o 
])remature  peaches  and  the  diseased  shoots  are  wanting,  and  the  un- 
favorable situation  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  symptoms  which 
do  appear. 

'  The  Jiiicrirdii  Fanner,  liiilti  more,  Mil.,  1575,  pp.  10n-10^>;  Tlir  nardenerii'  Month  I  j. 
riiiladeli.liia,  I'a.,  IS.t'O,  pp.  20()-207,  iiiid  1H84,  ]..  :!0;5, 


96  SPECIAL    REl'OKT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS, 

in.     LOSSES  DUE  TO  YELLOWS. 

DESTKCCTIVE    NATlHli    OK    THE    MALADY. 

This  may  be  shown  in  various  ways,  but  perhaps  in  no  better  way 
than  by  a  detailed  statement  of  the  condition  of  some  of  the  many 
orchards  visited  in  18S7,  representative  ones  being  selected  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  force  of  the  following  statements  will  also  be  enhanced  if  it 
be  remembered  that  with  one  exception  these  are  all  young  orchards, 
and  that,  in  this  same  region,  peach  orchards  unmolested  by  yellows  re- 
main healthy  and  productive  for  periods  ranging  from  fifteen  to  thirty 
years. 

(1)  Orchard  of  Dr.  W.  >V.  Maxwell,  Still  Pon(l,Md. — Examined  at  va- 
rious dates  in  August,  1887.  Ee-examiued  August  7, 1888,  This  orchard 
is  situated  in  Kent  County,  on  a  neck  of  land  near  the  mouth  of  Sassa- 
fras Eiver,  in  the  heart  of  a  very  important  i)each  district.  It  is  known 
locally  as  the  "  Gunnery  Point"  orchard.  The  trees  were  set  in  the 
au  tumn  of  J882,  the  field  beingspecially  selected  for  peaches  on  account 
of  its  situation  and  fertility.  They  were  procured  from  a  neighboring 
nursery,  were  carefully  planted,  and  received  each  year  thereafter 
clean  culture  and  all  necessary  attention.  The  trees  made  a  smooth, 
thrifty  growth,  and  did  not  exhaust  themselves  by  overbearing,  the 
orchard  having  never  produced  a  full  crop. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  1886,  when  a  few  of  the  trees  bore  premature 
peaches,  but  did  not  send  out  the  diseased  shoots.  When  I  examined 
the  orchard  in  August,  1887,  it  contained  518  trees,  210  of  which  were 
healthy,  279  diseased  by  yellows,  and  20  doubtful  (see  Map  J). 
Some  of  the  279  trees  bore  premature  peaches,  others  were  barren. 
Many  of  them  bore  great  numbers  of  the  diseased  shoots,  and  presented 
a  very  yellow  and  languishing  appearance.  Some  of  them  were  nearly 
dead.  Those  that  were  healthy  appeared  to  be  as  thrifty  as  any  peach 
trees.     See  Tabic  I  for  per  cent,  of  loss  and  distribution  by  varieties. 

Table  I.— Orchard  of  W.  s.  Alcuivell,  Still  I'oiid,  Mil. 


Variely. 

Number 
Number    '^1::^^' 

plante.1.     ^ggc  ami 

1887. 

Percent. 

of  dis- 
eased. 

G9 

:_!G    : 

G3 
51 

190              13C 
222                i-O 

1110             o:i 

:    Kceves'  Favorite 

Tot;il 

518               27;) 

In  1S8S,  170  of  the  remaining  healthy  trees  became  diseased,  /,  c,  74  per 
cent.  In  autumn  the  whole  orchard  was  removed  and  the  field  sowed 
to  wheat. 


LOSSES    DUE    TO    YELLOWS. 


97 


(2)  Orchard  of  Charles  H.  Price,  Still  Pond,  i¥(Z.— Examined  August 
16, 1887.  This  orchard  is  about  1  mile  west  of  No.  1,  on  higher,  lighter 
ground.  The  farm  lies  in  part  on  the  Sassafras  River,  in  part  on  Ches- 
apeake Bay.  The  trees  were  set  in  the  spring  of  1881,  and  have  received 
clean  culture  an«l  careful  attention,  the  orchard  having  been  liberally 
fertilized  and  plowed  and  harrowed  each  year  like  a  cornfield. 

Yellows  appeared  in  1881,  when  some  of  the  trees  first  bore  premature 
frnit.  The  disease  has  increased  in  extent  and  severity  until  it  is  now 
in  all  parts  of  the  orchard.  Many  trees  have  been  removed,  and  many 
more  are  badly  diseased  and  valuable  only  for  fuel.  Until  it  became 
diseased  this  orchard  made  a  good  growth.  It  has  borne  several  crops. 
In  August,  1887,  its  condition  was  as  follows  : 

Table  II.— Orchard  of  Charles  H.  Frice,  Still  Fond,  Md. 


Variety. 


Mountain  Rose . . 
Crawford's  Early 
Reeves'  Favorite 

Old  Mixon 

Stump  tbe  World. 
Crawford's  Late  ., 
Beers'  Smock 

Total 


Number 
of  trees 
planted. 


Number 

dugout  on 

account  of 

yellows 

prior  to 

1887. 


Number 
diseased 
by  yel- 
lows in 
1887. 


129 
312 
474 
269 
542 
5C8 
680 


52 
87 
93 
47 
103 
79 
99 


2,974 


560 


45 
100 
81 
14 
33 
53 
C7 


393 


To;al 
dead  and 
diseased. 


97 

187 
174 
61 
136 
132 
166 


Per  cent, 
of  dead 
and  dis- 
eased. 


953 


N'o  account  is  here  taken  of  130  Beers'  Smock  planted  in  a  low  spot 
in  the  southwest  corner  of  the  orchard,  all  of  which  have  been  removed, 
and  about  100  of  which  were  taken  out  on  account  of  yellows. 

In  1888,  257  became  diseased,  i.  <?.,  13  per  cent,  of  the  remaining 
healthy  trees.    The  per  cent,  of  the  previous  year  was  16. 

(3)  Orchard  of  Charles  R.  Price,  Still  Pond,  Md.— This  small  orchard 
lies  next  to  No.  2,  on  the  north  side.  It  was  planted  with  Waterloo, 
Early  Eivers,  Troth's  Early,  etc.,  and  has  received  as  careful  treatment 
as  the  other  orchard.  The  trees  were  set  in  1883,  and  have  made  a 
strong,  vigorous  growth.  This  orchard  has  never  exhausted  itself  by 
bearing,  and  was  entirely  healthy  until  1887.  In  August  of  that  year 
91  trees  out  of  a  total  of  209,  i.  e.,  43  per  cent.,  were  badly  diseased  by 
yellows,  and  some  of  them  were  a  sight  to  behold,  the  whole  interior  of 
the  tree-ton  being  filled  with  the  pale,  starved,  secondary  shoots.^  In 
1888,  90  of  the  remaining  118  trees  became  diseased,  /.  e,  76  per  cent. 

'  I  observed  many  other  cases  of  rapid  spread  of  yellow?.     Two  may  be  cited  here : 

(1)  An  orchard  of  10  acres  (1,000  trees)  on  the  "Bloomtield"  farm,  now  owned  by 

F.  H.  Harper,  and  located  on  the  south  bank  of  Sassafras  River,  not  far  from  Still 

Pond,  is  now  entirely  ruined  by  yellows.     I  examined  it  in  1888  and  found  only  77 

healthy  trees.     A  few  trees  may  have  been  diseased  in  1886,  but  the  disease  was  not 

11245— No.  9 7 


98 


SPECIAL    KEPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


(4)  Orchard  of  J.  FranJc  Wilson,  Still  Fond,  2Id. — Examined  August 
19,  1887.  Ee-examined  August  10,  1888.  This  orcliard  is  on.  only 
moderately  fertile  upland,  near  the  village,  some  miles  from  the  river. 
It  was  set  in  the  spring  of  1878,  and  each  season,  up  to  the  last  of 
June,  has  been  cultivated  as  carefully  as  a  cornfield.  The  trees  com- 
menced to  bear  at  three  years,  and  have  yielded  abundant  crops  of  good 
fruit. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  this  orchard  in  1882,  when  it  was  four  years 
old,  in  one  tree  only  on  the  extreme  north  side,  in  Troth's  Early.  This 
tree  bore  premature  fruit,  but  showed  none  of  the  diseased  shoots. 
In  1883,  two  other  trees  near  this  first  one  contracted  the  disease,  and 
that  year  all  three  bore  the  diseased  shoots.  The  third  year,  188 i, 
about  forty  trees  had  the  disease,  and  were  dug  out  and  drawn  to  the 
house  for  firewood.  In  the  fall  of  1885,  and  again  in  1886,  all  trees  that 
had  shown  any  signs  of  the  disease  were  cut  down  and  dug  out  and 
were  removed.  Previous  to  1887,  in  this  way  87  trees  bad  been  re- 
moved, and  47  others  were  then  diseased. 

The  following  table  shows  the  loss  by  varieties : 

Table  HI.— Orchard  of  J.  Frank  Wilson,  Still  Pond,  Md. 


Variety. 


Number 
of  trees 
planted. 


Number 

removed 

on  account 

of  yellows 

prior  to 

1887. 


Number 
diseased 
byyel- 
lows  in 

1887. 


Number 
diseased 
by  yel- 
lows in 

1888. 


Total 
dead  ami 
diseased. 


Per  ceut. 
of  dead 
and  dis- 
eased. 


Early  Louise 

Troth's  Early 

Keeves'  Favorite... 
stump  the  World.. 
Crawford's  Late. . . . 

Beers'  Smock 

Bilyeu's  October... 
Shipley's  Late  Ked 

Sal  way 

Christiana 

Mixed  Varieties  . .. 
Mountain  Rose 

Total 


40 
100 

75 

75 
100 
100 

25 
125 

75 

75 
100 

75 


39 


965 


47 


27 


ICl 


(5)  Orcliard  of  J.  Frank  Wilson,  Still  Fond,  Md. — This  orchard  lies 
south  of  IsTo.  4,  in  the  same  field.    It  was  set  in  1881 ;  made  good  growth, 

noticed  until  1887.    That  year  488  trees  prematured  i  heir  fruit  and  were  dug  oat.    In 
1888,  435  more  became  diseased.    This  orchard  is  six  years  old. 

(2)  An  orchard  of  30  acres  (about  3,000  trees)  near  Leipsic,  Del.,  owned  by  John  K. 
Nicholson,  contained  some  diseased  trees  in  1887.  I  sa-w  19  clear  cases,  and  quite  a 
good  many  trees  bore  rolled  or  reddi.<«h  foliage,  and  did  not  look  entirely  healthy.  In 
1888  there  were  500  diseased  tree.«i.     This  orchard  is  four  years  old. 


LOSSES    DUE    TO    YELLOWS. 


91) 

It  beffjiii  to 


aud  received  the  same  treatment  aud  care  as  the  other, 
bear  at  three  years,  and  has  been  productive. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  1885  on  the  south  side  in  one  tree  of  Mount- 
ain Eose.  That  tree  was  removed,  aud  no  other  cases  have  since  ap- 
peared in  the  vicinity.  The  condition  of  the  orchard  by  varieties  is 
shown  in  the  following  table: 

Table  IV .—Orchard  of  J.  Frank   Wilson,  SHU  Pond,  Aid. 


(6)  Orchard  of  F.  R.  Harper,  Still  Pond,  Md. — Examined  August  8 
and  10, 1887.  Ee-examined  August  6, 1888  (see  Map  II).  This  orchard 
is  on  the  north  side  of  the  farm,  along  the  highway,  on  nearly  level  up- 
land, about  4  miles  northeast  of  the  village  and  1  mile  from  Sassafras 
River.  The  trees  were  set  in  1881 ;  have  made  an  excellent  growth, 
and  were  a  source  of  pride  to  their  owner,  who  has  cared  for  them  with 
diligence.     The  orchard  has  been  productive.     In  188G  it  bore  heavily. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  188G,  in  four  trees  in  the  extreme  northeast 
corner.  These  were  not  removed.  The  orchard  contains  about  3,000 
trees,  of  which  number  311  were  found  diseased  in  1887  (see  Miiy>  II). 
Many  of  these  trees  bore  the  spotted,  prematurely  ripe  peaches;  others 
were  barren.  The  limbs  of  some  were  grown  up  quite  thickly  with  the 
diseased  shoots;  others  bore  few  such  shoots.  None  of  the  trees,  aud 
not  even  any  of  the  large  limbs,  were  yet  dead,  and  in  most  instances 
the  spring  foliage  was  of  full  size  aud  good  color.  The  last  statement 
also  applies  to  the  trees  which  became  diseased  in  1888.  This  orchard, 
like  No.  14,  was  of  special  interest  because  the  trees  were  very  thrifty, 
and  yellows  appeared  in  them  without  any  complications  due  to  borers, 
aphides,  or  other  injuries.  The  effects  which  I  saw  were  clearly  at- 
tributable to  one  disease. 

The  following  table  shows  the  loss  by  varieties: 


100 


tSPECIAL   REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 
Table  Y.— Orchard  of  F.  H.  Harper,  Still  Pond,  Md. 


Varietv. 


Variegated  Free 

Crawford's  Early 

Reeves's  Favorite 

Old  Mixon 

Christiana 

Crawford's  Late  (some  Harker's 
Seedlings  mixed  in) , 

Mary's  Choice  (some  Harker's 
Seedlings  mixed  in) 

Beers'  Smock 

Harker's  Seedling  (five  rows), 
Mountain  Hose  (two  rows),  and 
a  few  Reeves's 

Susquehanna  or  Brand.ywine 

Smock  and  a  few  Crawford's  Early, 

Total 


Number 
of  trees 
planted. 


Number  gone, 

318  of  which 

were  removed 

in  1887  on 

account  of 

Yellows. 


Number 
diseased 
by  yel- 
lows in 
]8S8. 


53 

107 

;o7 

260 

289 

406 

335 
666 


308 
216 
15G 


2,903 


405 


Total        Per  cent, 
dead  and  of  de.id-aud' 
diseased,    diseased. 


28 
138 


46  i 

I 

47  I 

39     I 
I 
21 

25 

8 
21 


24 


(7)  Orchard  of  William  ShaUcross,  Locust  Grove,  Md. — Examined 
August  2, 1887  ;  rcexauiiued  August  4,  1888.  This  orclianl  is  on  fertile 
upland  about  1  mile  from  the  south  bank  of  the  Sassafras  Eiver  and  3 
ruiles  east  of  No.  C.  It  contains  about  1,000  trees;  was  set  in  1881,  and 
until  recently  has  received  careful  attention.  The  trees  have  not  been 
exhausted  by  overbearing. 

In  1887,  this  orchard  was  affected  with  yellows  from  one  end  to  the 
other,  fully  one-half  the  trees  showing  marked  signs  of  the  disease,  and 
only  here  and  there  one  bearing  full-grown,  dark-green  foliage.  Many 
of  the  trees  are  stunted,  and  1  am  inclined  to  think  root  aphides  had 
been  at  work,  though  I  did  not  observe  them.  In  fourteen  rows  on  the 
north  side  of  the  orchard  scarcely  a  tree  was  exempt  from  the  disease. 
The  leaves  were  scattering,  small,  and  yellowish,  and  many  trees  bore 
l)lentilul  growths  of  the  wiry  witchbrooms.  The  crop  of  1880  pre- 
matured  badly.  In  1887  most  of  the  trees  were  barren.  I  saw  only 
here  and  there  a  peach,  but  all  of  these  were  premature.  As  a  whole, 
the  south  part  of  the  orchard  looked  healthier  than  the  north  part,  in 
which  Mr.  Shallcross  says  the  disease  appeared  w-hen  the  trees  had 
been  set  only  two  years.  This  orchard  is  practically  ruined,  and  for 
this  reason  received  little  attention  in  1887.  In  1888  the  whole  crop 
prematured.  There  remained  only  thirty-seven  healthy  trees,  nearly  all 
of  those  which  were  healthy  in  1887  having  become  badly  diseased. 

(8)  Orchard  of  William  Hudson,  Clayton,  Del. — Examined  October  5 
and  G,  1887;  revisited  iu  August,  1888,  but  examined  only  in  part. 
This  orchard  is  on  the  norlh  side  of  a  fertile  farm,  lying  midway  be- 
tween Clayton  and  Smyrna,     The  trees  were  set  in  1880,  and  made  good 


LOSSES    DUE    TO    YELLOWS. 


101 


growth.  They  have  received  yearly  cultivation  and  other  necessary 
atteutiou. 

Mr.  Hiulsou  thiuks  there  were  some  diseased  trees  in  this  orchard 
when  he  moved  upon  the  place  in  the  spring  of  1883,  but  says  he  har- 
vested from  it  two  good  crops  of  peaches,  i.  e.,  in  1883  and  1884.  Two 
years  ago  he  observed  many  "prematures,"  and  last  year  (1887)  it 
seemed  as  if  all  the  peaches  in  the  orchard  were  premature. 

Beginning  on  the  south  side,  I  went  through  this  orchard  by  double 
rows,  carefully  inspecting  each  tree.  In  all  there  were  3,520  trees,  in- 
cluding missing  ones  and  stumps  to  the  number  of  one  hundred  or  more. 
Of  this  total,  2,G10  were  diseased  by  yellows,  about  forty  of  the  trees 
being  entirely  dead.  In  other  words,  three  fourths  of  all  the  trees  in 
this  orchard  were  diseased.  Mr.  Hudson's  own  estimate  prior  to  the 
examination  was  three-fifths.  Many  of  these  trees  were  badly  affected 
a  ,d  ready  to  die  (see  Photo  XI).  The  largest  number  of  diseased 
trees  found  in  any  full  double  row  of  IGO  trees  was  142,  and  the  least 
was  105.    The  record  beginning  on  the  south  side  of  the  orchard,  is  as 

follows: 

Table  VI. — Orchard  of  JVilliam  Hudson,  Clayton,  Del. 


Variety. 


Mountain    Eoso,   includes  thirty- 
three  trees  of  Late  Heath  Cliug.    i 

I 

York's  Early  ami  Troth's  Early 

Crawford's  Early  (three  rows) 

f 

Moore's   Favorite  and   Variegated  j 

Free  (seven  rows).  "j 

I 
Reeves's  Favorite 

I 
PiiUen's  Seedling  (three  rows)  and  J 

Crawford's  Late  (live  rows).  | 

I 

Ward's  Late  Free  (three  and  one-  f 

half  rows)  and  Beers'  Smock  (one-  -J 

half  row).  I 

f 
Sliipley 's  Late  Red    •{ 


Donble   Number 
row.    I  of  trees. 


Total 


124 
124 
124 
124 
124 
152 
ICO 
IGO 
160 
160 
ICO 
160 
ICO 
160 
160 
160 
160 
160 
]C0 

160 
119 

104 
91 

78 
61 
30 
lit 

y.  J-0 


Number 
found  dis- 
eased by 
yellows  in 
1887. 


Percent,  of 
dead  and 
diseased. 


84 
80 
93 
111 

130 

142 

137 

127 

131 

117 

115 

113 

106 

1U8  li 

123     i 

120  I  I 

120  \) 


76 


105 

77 


68  i^ 

C3     j 

49  I  I 

27  '  I 
11    J 


2,616 


75 
66 

75 
65 

73 
74 


102 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


Ill  1SS8,  this  orchard  bore  ii  small  crop  of  peaclies,  but  most  of  them 
were  premature,  iusipid,  and  small. 

{'.))  Oi'chard  of  John  Hudson,  Clayton,  Del. — Examiued  October  7, 
1887  ;  re-examined  August  14,  1888.  This  orchard  is  1  mile  northwest 
of  Claytou,  ou  nearly  level  saudy  loam.  It  was  set  in  the  spring  of 
1883,  for  the  most  partou  ground  which  had  previously  been  in  peaches. 
Tlie  old  orchard  was  removed  eight  years  before  this  one  was  set, 
the  land,  meanwhile,  being  two  years  in  pasture  and  the  rest  of  tbe 
time  in  corn,  wheat,  etc.  A  triangular  portion  on  the  south  side  was 
never  before  in  peaches,  and  this  ground  is  said  to  have  been  in  past- 
ure i)revious  to  planting.  There  is  a  slight  rise  on  the  southwest  side, 
but  not  over  8  feet.  No  part  of  the  orchard  is  wet.  I  could  see  no 
(liifiMence  in  any  part,  either  as  to  quality  of  soil  or  kind  or  quantity  of 
weeds.  Mr.  Murphy,  the  tenant,  says  he  observed  the  disease  in  this 
orchard  in  1S8G.  It  existed  ijrevious  to  that  date  in  an  old  orchard  on 
the  same  farm.  In  188S  this  orchard  prematured  badly.  The  following 
table  shows  the  condition  of  the  orchard  by  varieties  : 


Table  VIL — Orchard  of  John  Hudson,  Cluyton,  DeL 


Variety. 

Number 

Number    disea.sed 

of  trees      by  yel- 

plauted.      lows  iu 

1887. 

Xumber 
diHua.sed 
by  yel- 
lows in 
1888. 

Remark  .s  on  condition 

in  1887. 

Mountain  Rose 

Old  Mixon  (?) 

Stump  (0  

192                32 
192                35 
192                47 

36 
51 
63 
23 
52 
58 
19 

68                35 
80                45 
110  ;              57 

1 

Planted  eight 
years  after  the  re- 
iiioviil  of  an  old  or- 
J- chard.    Total  trees 
1  in  block,  1,216;  total 
disea.sed,  232,    i.  e., 
less  than  one-flfth. 

J 

)  Short  rows  plant- 
ed on  ground  never 

[before  in  peaches. 
Total  trees,  307;  to- 
tal diseaseil,  115,  i.  e., 
over  one-third. 

1 

lleeves' Favorite... 
Crawfoid'sLate(l) 

192 

192 
160 
96 

80 
180 

47 

23 
43 
30 
22 

46 
95 
88 
41 
49 
103 

27 

21 
49 
55 
43 
61 
57 

57 

stump  (!)    

Beers'  Smock 

Christiana  (?) 

Smock  and  some 
other  yellow  sort. 

27                22 
73                30 

15                12 

Total 

1,523              317              3S6  |            713  \              47 

i      .                                 1                    I 

(10)  Orchard  of  ,L  Frank  De7iney,  Leijjsic,  Del—^xRimwd  Septem- 
ber *J  aiul  10,  1887.  This  orchard  is  about  1  mile  northwest  of  Leipsic, 
and  4  miles  from  Delaware  13ay,  on  level,  fertile  soil.  The  trees  were 
set  in  the  spring  of  1881,  and  grew  very  thriftily,  so  that  four  years 
ago  the  orchard  was  acknowedged  to  be  the  finest  iu  the  neighbor- 
hood. It  received  careful  attention,  being  cultivated  frequently  each 
year  until  July.  The  orchard  has  not  been  exhausted  by  overbear- 
ing. It  bore  a  few  peaches  in  1884,  about  200  baskets  in  1885,  3,200 
in  1880,  and  none  in  1887. 

Yellows  may  have  appeared  in  1884,  but  was  6rst  noticed  in  1885,  in 
a  few  trees  in  two  groups  ou  the  east  side  of  the  orchard  (see  Map  III). 


LOSSES    DUE    TO    YELLOWS. 


103 


Some  uf  these  trees  were  removed.  In  188G  many  trees  became  af- 
fected, and  many  peacbes  ripeued  prematurely,  particularly  on  the 
north  end  of  the  orchard.  Many  of  these  trees  were  pulled  out,  but 
not  all  of  them.  In  1887  the  disease  spread  rapidly,  involving  nearly 
all  the  remaining  healthy  trees  (see  Map  III).  At  the  time  of  my  visit 
Mr.  Denney  was  thoroughly  discouraged,  and  talked  of  cutting  down 
the  entire  orchard.  Having  harvested  one  moderate  crop  he  thought 
if  he  removed  the  trees  at  once  and  put  the  ground  to  other  uses  the 
debit  and  credit  of  the  orchard  would  very  nearly  balance.  Many  of 
the  trees  were  very  yellow  and  presented  a  most  miserable  languishing 
appearance.  The  following  table  exhibits  more  completely  some  of  the 
results  of  my  examination : 

Table  VIIL — Orcliard  of  J.  Frank  Denney,  Le'q)dc,  Del. 


Variety. 

Number 
of  trees 
plauted. 

Number  gone, 

chiefly  ou 

account  of 

yellows. 

Number 
found  dis- 
eased by 
yellows  in 

18S7. 

Per  cent. 

of  dead  and 

diseased. 

300 
200 
200 
3C0 
200 
200 
200 
300 
200 
*4G 

96 
100 
95 
49 
70 
70 
81 
45 
42 
7 

184 
83 
84 
195 
114 
112 
96 
203 
128 
30 

90 
92 
90 
81 
92 
91 
89 
83 
85 
80 

Foster 

Crawford's  Early 

Stump  the  World 

Steveu's  Late  Rare-ripe 

Total 

2, 146 

655 

1,229 

88 

*There  were  300  trees  of  this  variety,  but  for  want  of  time  only  46  were  examined, 
amincd  appeared  to  be  equa  lly  diseased. 


Those  not  ex- 


(11)  Orchard  of  William  B.  Morris,  Dover,  Del. — Examined  Septem- 
ber 20,  1887.  This  orchard,  of  12  to  15  acres,  is  ou  thin,  sandy  land, 
about  1  mile  south  of  Dover  and  20  or  30  feet  above  St.  Jones'  Creek, 
which  surrounds  it  on  three  sides.  The  trees  were  set  in  the  spring  of 
1880.  This  orchard  received  careful  attention  and  thorough  cultivation 
each  year.  It  has  also  received  great  quantities  of  chicken  bones  and 
some  commercial  fertilizers,  but  has  never  returned  much  in  the  way  of 
l)eaches. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  1885,  or  possibly  in  1884,  in  a  few  trees. 
Up  to  this  date  the  orchard  presented  a  healthy  appearance,  although 
it  had  not  made  a  large  growth.  In  1886  the  disease  spread  rapidly, 
and  in  1887  I  found  nearly  all  the  trees  affected,  at  least  three-fourths 
of  them.  The  foliage  of  this  orchard  was  of  a  sickly  reddish  or  yellow- 
ish green  and  was  much  dwarfed,  as  were  also  the  terminal  shoots. 
The  orchard  was  also  suffering  from  root- aphides. 


104 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


Some  trees  were  gone,  and  the  yoiiug  ones  which  had  that  spriiif,^  been 
set  in  their  place  were  diseased  in  the  same  way,  as  were  a  few  trees 
in  the  neighboring,  otherwise  thrifty,  orchard  of  10  acres  or  more,  also 
set  that  sjjring  (see  Photo.  YI,  which  well  represents  the  appearance 
of  these  young  trees). 

(12)  Orchard  of  William  Brothers,  Dover,  Del. — Examined  September 
16,  1887.  Ee  examined  August  16,  1338.  This  orchard  is  on  mellow 
loam,  such  as  one  would  naturally  select  for  a  peach  orchard.  It  is  3^ 
miles  west  of  Dover.  The  trees  were  set  in  tlie  spring  of  1881,  re- 
ceived careful  attention,  and  made  a  good  growth. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  1887,  and  none  of  the  trees  were  then  badly 
diseased.  The  following  table  shov/s  the  condition  of  the  orchard  by 
varieties : 

Table  IX.— Orchard  of  fViUiam  Brothers,  Dover,  Del. 


Variety. 


Anisden's  June 

Early  Alexander 

Early  Hi  vers 

Old  Mixou  

Eoeves'  Favori  te 

Mixed  varieties,  cbiefly  Stump  tb 

World 

01lino^3e  Cling 

Crawford's  Lato 

Sahvay  (?)  Probably  Beers'  Smock  . 

Bilyeu's  October 

Beers'  Smock 

Total 


Nurabe;.' 
of  trees 
planted. 


50 
50 
50 
50 
50 

74 
25 

350 
50 
25 

230 

1,024 


Ifurtiber 

diseased  by 

yellows  in 

1887. 


Niimber 

diseased  by 

yellows  in 

1888. 


Total 
diseased. 


Per  cent, 
of  diseased. 


18 
24 

8 

4 

2 

12 
12 

5 
42 

0 

0.4 


*  Mostly  smock. 

(13)  Orchard  of  M.  Hays,  Dover,  7>c/.— Examined  September  24, 1887. 
lie  examined  August  19,  1888,  This  small  orchard  stands  near  the  west 
side  of  the  highway  one-half  mile  south  of  Dover.  It  contains  220 
trees,  which  were  selected  with  great  care  for  t^imil}^  use.  They  were 
set  in  the  spring  of  1881^  and  have  received  particular  attention. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  1887.  The  orchard  was  barren  when  exam- 
ined, but  no  less  than  36  trees,  16  per  cent.,  bore  the  diseased  shoots, 
although  none  of  them  were  then  badly  affected.  In  1888  I  found  47 
additional  cases,  i.  e.,  26  per  cent. 

(14)  Orchard  of  James  W  Green,  Magnolia,  Del. — Examined  Septem- 
ber 5,  14, 17,  and  19,  1887.  Ee-examined  August  17  and  18, 1888.  This 
orchard  stands  on  level,  fertile  land,  on  the  east  side  of  the  highway, 
about  7  miles  south  of  Dover,  and  a  mile  or  two  west  of  Magnolia.  This 
orchard  was  set  in  the  spring  of  1882,  with  trees  procured  in  the  neigh- 
borhood.   During  the  first  three  years  it  was  cultivated  in  corn,  and 


LOSSES   DUE    TO    YELLOWS. 


105 


siuce  then  has  beeu  tilled  without  crop.s.  It  received  great  care,  grew 
thriftily,  aud  became  a  source  of  much  gratitication  to  the  owuer,  who 
expected  to  receive  many  crops  therefrom.  Owing  to  its  unbroken 
rows  and  clean  thrifty  growth  it  specially  attracted  my  attention.  In 
fact  I  did  not  see  a  finer  orchard  anywhere  in  Delaware.  It  contains 
about  33  acres,  to  30  of  which  I  paid  special  attention  (see  Map  lY). 
This  orchard  is  situated  in  the  heart  of  a  very  productive  peach  region, 
but  has  never  exhausted  itself  by  overbearing.  It  bore  no  peaches  the 
third  year,  only  1,500  baskets  the  fourth  year,  none  the  fifth  year,  and 
only  from  1,500  to  2,000  in  1887,  quite  a  good  many  of  which  were 
premature.    The  healthy  trees  bore  a  good  crop  in  1888. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  1880,  in  a  few  trees  only.  Mr.  Green  says 
four  trees,  near  each  other  on  the  west  side,  had  been  sickly  for  several 
years.  In  1880  he  dug  about  them  and  made  longitudinal  slits  in  the 
bark  of  the  trunks,  and  early  in  the  spring  of  1887  cut  back  two  of 
them  to  the  stump.  The  stumps  of  these  two  trees  sent  out  nothing  but 
the  diseased  shoots,  which  grew  up  into  a  tufted  mass.  One  of  the  other 
two  trees  also  showed  the  disease.  From  a  very  careful  examination  I 
am  inclined  to  think  some  of  the  trees  on  the  east  side  of  the  orchard 
may  also  have  been  affected  in  1886,  and  been  overlooked  because  the 
orchard  was  barren.  However,  I  am  confident  that  not  more  than  ten 
trees  in  the  whole  orchard  could  have  been  so  diseased  in  1886,  and 
probably  not  that  number.  Even  the  four  trees  mentioned  by  Mr. 
Green  as  sickly  were  not  known  to  have  the  yellows,  and  one  of  them 
certainly  did  not  have  it,  for  it  was  healthy  in  1887.  The  condition  of 
the  orchard  by  varieties,  exclusive  of  250  Amsden's  June  not  critically 
examined,  is  shown  in  the  following  table: 

Table  X. — Orchard  of  James  TV.  Green,  Magnolia,  Del. 


Variety. 

Number 
of  trees 
planted. 

Number 
diseased  by 
yellows  in 

1886  a:id 

1887. 

Number 
diseased  by 
yellows  in 

1888. 

Total 
diseased. 

Per  cent, 
of  disea.'*ed. 

353 
155 
109 
211 
729 
171 
374 
264 
210 
340 

77 
14 
2 
4 
37 
2 

25 
12 
20 

51 
15 
14 
3 
82 
17 
46 
23 
28 

3;- 

■   128 
29 
10 

119 
19 

71 
35 
5t 

OG 

36 
19 
15 
3 

16 
11 
19 
13 
26 
2S 

Wilkins'  Cling 

Fox's  Seedling 

Crawford's  Late 

OldMixon 

Troth's  Early 

Total 

2, 922 

260 

314 

574 

20 

(15)  Orchardof  D.  P.Barnard,  Bislng  Sun,  Del, — Examlued  Septen:ber 
7, 1887.  Ke-examined  August  21, 1888.  This  orchard  stands  on  warm, 
sandy  loam,  on  the  east  side  of  the  highway,  in  a  great  peach  region, 


106  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

aud  nol  more  tliau  oiicbalf  mile  from  tbe  celebrated  "  Aisbcraft"  form. 
It  contains  about  25  acres,  but  only  tbe  west  part  was  examined. 
Tbe  trees  were  set  in  the  spring  of  1885,  and  have  received  yearly  cul- 
tivation in  corn  and  tomatoes,  fertilizers  being  used.  Tbe  orcbard  first 
bore  peaches  in  1888. 

Yellows  first  appeared  in  1887,  chiefly  in  six  rows  on  the  west  side 
(see  Map  V).  Out  of  about  1,000  trees  34  were  diseased.  East  and 
southeast  of  this  orchard,  on  the  same  farm,  stood  two  other  orchards, 
both  of  which  became  quite  badly  diseased  in  188G  or  earlier. 

(16)  Orchard  of  Br.  Henry  RidgeJy,  Dover,  Del. — Examined  September 
23,  1887.  Tliis  orchard  is  on  deep,  fertile  sandy  loam,  at  Cowgill's  Cor- 
ners, 4  miles  east  of  Dover  and  3  miles  from  Delaware  Bay.  It  was  set 
in  the  spring  of  1855,  and  originally  contained  about  2,000  trees.  It  re- 
ceived careful  and  often  prolonged  cultivation  each  year,  aud  has  been 
a  very  productive  orcbard,  but  has  never  received  much  return  in  tbe 
way  of  fertilizers.  During  the  thirty-two  years  quite  a  good  many  trees 
had  disappeared  from  effects  of  injury  by  freezing,  by  over-bearing,  by 
borers,  etc.,  but  yellows  did  not  appear  until  1877,  and  then  in  a  few  trees 
only.  These  were  dug  out  and  removed.  Each  year  since  then  the  dis- 
ease has  appeared  in  some  trees,  and  each  year  they  have  been  removed. 
It  is  not  possible  to  determine  exactly  how  many  trees  have  been  taken 
out  on  this  account,  but  certainly  a  number  of  hundred.  In  1887  the 
disease  attacked  more  trees  than  any  previous  year,  and  these  were  stand- 
ing at  the  date  of  my  visit.  Out  of  the  original  2,000  trees  I  estimated 
that  800  were  remaining,  and  of  this  number  at  least  500  were  then  en- 
tirely free  from  yellows,  and  appeared  likely  to  continue  productive  for 
another  ten  years  if  not  molested  by  that  disease. 

(17)  Orchard  of  Joseph  McDa7iiel,  Dover,  Del — Examined  September 
27, 1887.  Ee-examined  August  20,  1888  (see  Map  VI).  This  orchard 
stands  on  the  southwest  side  of  the  highway,  2  miles  northwest  of  Dover. 
Tbe  nearly  level  field  consists  of  light  sand  or  loam,  worn  out  thirty  years 
ago  and  brought  back  to  a  state  of  fertility  by  recent  very  heavy  mauur- 
ings.  The  orchard  has  also  received  commercial  fertilizers.  It  was 
planted  in  tbe  spring  of  1884.  It  received  careful  culture ;  made  a  thrifty 
growth;  and  bore  no  peaches  until  1888,  when  it  was  planted  to  corn. 

When  first  examined,  those  trees  not  diseased  bore  full-grown,  bealtby 
foliage,  and  in  every  way  appeared  to  be  vigorous.  The  tops  of  many  of 
the  diseased  trees  were  also  of  a  healthy  green,  indicating  recent  disease. 
Some  of  the  trees  in  this  orchard  probably  became  diseased  in  1886,  but 
did  not  attract  attention.  Most  of  them,  undoubtedly,  first  became  af- 
fected in  1887.  Out  of  about  1,800  trees,  504  were  diseased,  the  greater 
number  being  on  the  southeast  side  of  the  orchard  (see  Map  VI  on  which 
the  arrow  points  south).  Photographs  I  and  II  are  of  shoots  taken  from 
this  orchard.  On  the  limbs  of  many  trees  were  numerous  pale,  feeble 
shoots. 

In  1888,  383  out  of  the  remaining  1,300  trees  became  diseased. 

(18)  Orchard  of  Dr.  W.  S.  Maxicell,  Still  Fond,  ilW.- Examined  Au- 
gust 14,  1887.    Ite-examined  August  7,  1888  (see  Map  VII).    Tbis  or- 


PEACH    INDUSTflY    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES.  107 

chard  was  set  iu  1885  aud  1880.  It  lies  south  of  No.  1,  at  the  foot  of  ;k 
high  hill  on  which  are  also  diseased  orchards.  The  soil  of  the  ''  bottom  " 
is  deep,  mellow  loam ,  which  receives  the  draiuage  of  the  hill  and  is  fertile. 
The  higher  parts  of  the  orchard  contain  more  clay.  In  1887  it  was  cul- 
tivated without  a  crop.  In  1888  it  was  planted  in  corn,  both  trees  aud 
corn  making  a  vigorous  growth,  especially  in  the  low  part.  The  outer 
four  rows  of  trees  on  the  east  side  are  one  year  younger.  None  of  these 
are  diseased  by  yellows,  but  some  on  the  south  end  are  badly  "  Frenched  " 
(see  Photo.  XXVII). 

The  orchard  bore  fruit  this  year  for  the  first  time  (sparingly),  but  some 
of  the  trees  blossomed  last  year,  and  set  a  peach  or  two.  The  trees  which 
I  found  diseased  in  1887  were  all  in  the  southwest  corner.  Xone  bore 
fruit;  some  looked  yellow,  and  some  had  put  out  a  scanty,  wiry, 
branched  growth  from  the  stock  near  the  earth  or  from  the  top,  or  in 
both  places. 

In  August,  1888,  45  per  cent,  of  the  older  trees,  previously  healthy  (!), 
showed  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  yellows,  either  in  premature  fruit 
or  diseased  shoots,  or  in  both. 

EXTENT  OF   THE  PEACH  INDUSTRY  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

The  peach  is,  by  common  consent,  the  choicest  fruit  of  middle  lat- 
itudes, and  is  cultivated  in  both  the  north  aud  south  Temperate  Zones 
the  world  over ;  but  nowhere  else  in  such  enormous  quantities  as  in  the 
United  States.  Notwithstanding  this,  since  facilities  for  drying  and 
canning  on  a  large  scale  have  become  general,  there  is  a  demand  for  the 
entire  product  of  even  the  most  prolific  years,  and  iudirectl}'  the  indus- 
try has  thus  become  one  that  interests  all  parts  of  the  country. 

The  districts  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  now  chiefly  interested 
iu  the  production  of  this  fruit  are  the  following  :  Southern  Connecticut, 
southeastern  New  York  and  western  New  York,  southern  Ontario,  New 
Jersey',  eastern  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  middle  Georgia, 
Tennessee,  northern  Ohio,  southwestern  Michigan,  southern  Illinois, 
southern  Kansas,  parts  of  Missouri,  Arkansas,  and  Texas,  and  nearly  all 
of  California.  The  accompanying  map  (IX)  will  indicate  these  areas 
more  definitely.  This  map  also  shows  the  area  north  of  which  peaches 
are  an  uncertain  crop,  owing  to  the  severity  of  the  winters,  and  also  that 
area  south  of  which  they  are  not  much  grown  for  commercial  purposes, 
owing  to  the  moisture  and  heat  of  the  climate  or  to  the  long  distance 
from  large  markets.  The  areas  of  greatest  productivity  lie  (1)  along 
the  Atlantic  coast  between  New  York  and  Norfolk  and  (2)  on  the  Pacific 
slope  in  California.  The  accompanying  map  also  roughly  indicates  the 
present  distribution  of  peach  yellows  in  the  United  States  and  Canada, 
so  far  as  known. 

The  total  peach  product  of  the  United  States,  as  determined  by  the 
Tenth  Census,  was  never  published  and  can  not  now  be  ascertained. 
But  though  it  can  not  be  determined  for  the  whole  country,  it  can  be  de- 


108 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


termiued  approximately,  and  for  a  serie.s  of  years,  lor  the  Delaware  aud 
Chesapeake  i)eiiinsnla,  which  Las  been  one  of  the  most  productive 
areas.  The  followinj;'  table  gives  the  shipments  over  the  Delaware 
Division  of  the  Philadelphia,  Wilmington  and  Baltimore  Kailroad  for 
a  series  of  years;  and  if  one  third  be  added  for  years  prior  to  1880,  aud 
one-half  for  years  following,  to  make  up  for  peaches  dried,  canneil,  aud 
consumed  on  tlie  peninsula,  or  marketed  by  water,  the  total  will  very 
ue.arly  represent  the  actual  product  of  the  entire  peninsula,  or  at  least 
will  uot  be  in  excess  of  that  product. 

Table  XL — Peach  shipmenls  from  the  Delaware  and  Chesapcalce  Peninnula  over  the  Pliil- 
adclphia,  Wilminf/ton  and  Baltimore  Railroad.  (Copied  from  office  records  bi/jjcrmission 
of  Superintendent  I.  X.  Mills,  Clayton,  Del.) 


Year. 

Baskets 

(five-eighths 

bushel) . 

1 

Tear. 

Basliets 

(tive-eijihlhs 

bushel). 

1867 

18G.^ 

1869 

1870 

1,  086, 530 

12,  267 
2, 143,  467 
1, 443,  733 

2,  668,  800 
2, 18),  807 
1,521,600 

675,  200 
4,  536, 000 
1,  058,  500 
•-',  001,  500 

434,  500 
2, 185,  500 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1883             

1,  708,  500 
270,  500 

2,  731,  770 
1,  783, 477 
1,930,017 
1,  870,  4S0 
1,099,738 

848,  378 
3, 177,  477 

37,  350,  417 

1871 

1872 

1873 

1884 

1885             .  .            

1886 

1874 

1887 

1875 

1876 

1877 

1888 

Total     for     twenty-two 

1878 

1879 

VALCE   OF   PEACH  PRODUCTS. 

Skill  and  industry  are  required  in  peach  growing.  Isot  every  man 
who  sets  an  orchard  becomes  a  successful  i^each-grower.  There  are 
many  obstacles  to  be  overcome,  and  failures  are  not  infrequent.  Never- 
theless, in  the  peach  districts  no  other  crop  can  be  grown  with  anything 
like  the  same  amount  of  profit.  Many  farmers  have  become  rich  in 
the  business,  and  very  often  a  comparatively  small  peach  orchard  has 
yielded  a  larger  money  return  than  all  the  rest  of  the  farm.  Some  idea 
of  the  profits  of  successful  peach  growing  may  be  gained  from  the  fol- 
lowing statements : 

A  70-acre  orchard  belonging  to  James  Hurdd,  of  Locust  Grove,  Md., 
and  now  nineteen  years  old,  has  borne  twelve  crops  at  an  average  yearly 
value  of  about  $6,000. 

An  orchard  of  2,700  trees  owned  by  Thomas  D.  France,  of  Chester- 
town,  Md.,  is  said  to  have  netted  its  former  owner  over  $40,000.  The 
trees  are  between  twenty-one  and  twenty-six  years  old  and  appear  to  be 
healthy  enough  to  bear  peaches  for  another  live  years. 

During  a  series  of  years  the  tenant  on  tiie  Ashcraft  farm,  near  Mag- 
nolia, Del.,  made  enough  out  of  his  share  of  the  peach   crop  to  buy  a 


VALUE  OF  PEACH  PRODUCTS,  109 

valuable  farm  of  his  own.  The  same  is  true  of  the  tenant  on  the  neigh- 
boriii:^'  M;;Bri(le  farai,  and  is  true  also  of  other  tenants  in  IMaryland  and 
Delaware. 

In  187-1,  Dr.  Henry  Uidgelj,  of  Dover,  Del.,  paid  $11,000  for  the 
Slaughter  fiirni,  southwest  of  Dover.  This  was  over  870  an  acre  and 
was  at  that  time  considered  an  exorbitant  price.  Between  1871  and  1887 
this  farm  yielded  over  83i),000  worth  of  peaches.  The  orchard  also  bore 
a  large  and  valuable  crop  in  1888.  To  say  nothing  of  other  products, 
this  farm  has  paid  for  itself  in  peaches  alone  three  times  over  in  lifteen 
years.  On  this  farm  in  1880  the  produt^t  of  IG  acres  of  early  peaches, 
then  three  years  old,  sold  for  over  $1,800. 

Dr.  llidgely  kindly  furnished  me  with  records  from  other  farms  which 
are  of  equal  interest. 

About  twenty-five  years  ago  he  raised  30  acres  of  line  wheat,  which 
he  sold  for  $3,800.  The  same  year  from  10  acres  of  Trotli's  early  peaches 
he  realized  nearly  $2,G00,  L  e. ;  over  $250  per  acre. 

In  1863,  1804,  or  18G5  (he  is  now  uncertain  which  year),  the  peach  crop 
from  Ins  Cowgill's  Corner  farm  sold  for  $1,2G0,  i.  c,  $€13  per  acre,  al- 
though some  peaches  were  lost  by  the  equinoxial  storm. 

In  1873,  from  70  acres  of  peach  orchard,  he  sold  peaches  to  the  amount 
of  $10,209,  although  the  Early  Yorks,  which  were  very  fine  and  hung 
full,  were  all  lost  by  a  cloud-burst  or  very  heavy  rain-fall.  That  year 
one  tree  bore  $20  worth  of  peaches ;  another  tree,  $25  worth ;  and  a 
third  tree,  $20.50  worth.  From  this  third  tree,  by  mistake,  the  men 
picked  15  baskets  of  green  fruit  two  weeks  too  soon,  and  this  was  lost. 
But  for  this  accident  a  single  tree  would  have  produced  over  $30  worth 
of  fruit. 

In  1884,  from  400  trees  (4  acres)  of  Fox's  Seedlings,  he  realized  $830  ; 
i.  e.,  $205  per  acre.  This  fruit  was  sold  in  four  days,  the  highest  iirice 
I)aid  for  any  of  it  being  05  cents  iier  basket. 

T.  0.  Crookshank,  of  Cecilton,  Md.,  sold  $1,200  worth  of  peaches  in 
188G  from  12  acres. 

Eichard  Hollyday's  orchard  of  SOacresin  Spaniard's  Neck,  set  in  1806, 
netted  him  an  average  of  $30  per  acre  for  ten  consecutive  years.  The 
trees  were  dug  out  at  the  age  of  twenty,  having  borne  for  about  sixteen 
years. 

From  the  farm  of  William  Hudson,  near  Clayton,  Del.,  $10,000  worth 
of  peaches  were  sold  in  the  two  years  1883  and  1884,  the  orchards  at  that 
time  containing  about  100  acres. 

In  1870,  according  to  William  Parry,  a  INIiddletown,  Del.,  peach- 
grower,  formerly  from  New  Jersey,  cleared  $38,000  from  400  p.cres  of 
peaches.  Mr.  Parry  also  declared  that  he  could  name  several  fruit- 
growers who  in  1809  sold  from  20,000  to  00,000  baskets  each,  at  a  clear 
profit  of  from  $10,000  to  $3'J,0f)().i  He  is  also  authority  for  the  state- 
ment that  the  Peach  Blossom  farm  in  I\Iaryland,  which  sold  some  years 
prior  to  1871  for  $31,000,  yielded  the  buyer  the  first  season  peaches 

^  ProceediiKji  of  Ihc  FennsyJiHDua  Fniil  Groircra^  Society,  1871,  pp.  -17,48. 


no 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    rEACII    YKEEOWS. 


eiiougb  over  aud  above  all  expenses  of  i)icliiug  and  marketing  to  entirely- 
pay  lor  the  farm. 

Mr.  Parry's  conclusion  is  that  "so  far  as  peacli  growing  ou  a  large 
scale  is  concerned,  tbc  net  profits  may  very  safely  be  set  down  at  from 
8100  to  8175  per  acre,  while  in  many  instances  they  jield  right  through 
from  $175  to  $250  per  acrc".^  If  grof:;s  profits  be  substituted  for  "  net 
profits,"  this  conclusion  does  not  diflcr  materially  from  my  own.  It  re- 
lates, of  course,  to  bearing  years. 

The  profits  of  large  orchards /or  a  series  of  years  have  in  some  in- 
stances been  very  remarkable.     I  cite  two  cases  : 

Table  XII.— Orc/^a^^  of  E.  C.  Fennimore,  Odessa,  Del.,  100  acres.'' 


Tear. 


Bask  els. 


1831  (first  crop ; 
orch aid  two 
years  old) 

1802 

18C3 

18Gi 

1865 

1866 

1867 

ISCS 

1869 

1870 

1871 

1872 

1873 

1874 


Total,  fourteen 
years 


191 

1,  8D4 

18,423 

25, 004 

2?,  124 

13,075 

27,  500 

4,230 

34,  000 

10, 029 

19,  COO 

6,957 

],4:o 

C74 


Value. 


$206. 24 

868. 34 
15, 051. 81 
18,443.98 
23, 070. 25 
29,  206. 07 
18,  551. 40 
15,  281. 68 
14, 464. 27 
15,007.76 

0, 432.  55 
2,  9^-1. 61 
1,  341. 83 

696. 35 


192, 718       162,  224. 14 


This  is  equivalent  to  an  average  annual  return  of  $110  per  acre  for 
fourteen  years. 

Table  XIII.— 0/-c/ia)cZ  of  Col.  E.  C.  Wilkins,  Chestertown,  Md.,  325  acres.' 


Tear. 


1862  (orchard  planted  four  years) . . . 

1803 

1864 

1863 

1866. 

18G7 

1868 

1869 

1870 

Value  of  brandy  made  during  these 
nine  years 

Total 


Gross  receipfs. 


$12, 
32 
32, 
48, 
16, 

9- 

1, 

30, 


GOO.  CO 
340.  00 
399. 00 
042.98 
804.00 
989. 00 
350. 00 
429. 00 
000. 00 


15, 150. 00 


231, 043. 98 


'  Proceedings  of  the  Pennsylvania  Fndt  Groioers'  Scciet;/,  1871,  pp.  49,  .^O. 
'■'  Copied  from  the  yearly  record  by  permissinTi  of  Mr.  Fi^nnimore. 
■<  The  UorticuUurist,  N.  T.,  1871,  p.  308. 


PEACH    GROWING    AND    KEAL    ESTATE    VALUES.  lU 

Michigan  peach  orchards  are  not  less  profitable  than  those  of  the 
Atlantic  coast. 

About  18G8,  in  a  letter  to  D.  A.  Wiuslow,  George  Parmelee  stated 
that  in  18G5,  on  his  Berrien  County  farm,  "  forty-five  early  Crawford 
trees  produced  a  few  baskets  over  1,100  [peck  (?)  baskets]  and  sold 
for  $2  per  basket,  amounting  to  $2,20  0.  The  trees  were  20  feet  apart 
each  way,  which  puts  109  trees  on  an  acre,  and  makes  the  yield  at  the 
rate  of  $5,848  to  the  acre.  This,  of  course,  is  given  as  an  extreme  re- 
sult, but  if  any  man  thinks  that  peach -growing  in  this  region  is  not 
profitable,  let  him  call  on  our  fruit-growers  and  get  facts."  ^ 

In  18G5  or  1866,  S.  F.  Heath,  of  Heath's  Corners,  Berrien  County, 
Mich.,  purchased  5  acres  of  bearing  peach  orchard  for  $1,350.  His  first 
crop  sold  for  $1,800.  He  then  sold  the  5  acres  to  William  Gates  for 
$7,000.  Mr.  Gates  sold  his  first  crop  for  $2,000  and  his  next  one,  1868, 
for  $4,000,  and  had  "  good  prospects  for  a  greater  crop  the  following 
year."^ 

In  1874,  after  correspondence  with  one  hundred  of  the  largest  peach- 
growers,  H.  E.  Bidwell,  of  South  Haven,  Mich.,  stated  the  average 
profit  on  peaches  in  Van  Buren  County,  for  the  three  years,  1872-'74,  to 
have  been  $343.89  per  acre,  i.  e.,  $300  in  1872,  $431.68  in  1873.  and  $300 
iu  1874.^ 

In  1879,  George  T.  Lay,  of  Allegan  County,  Mich.,  sold  $1,000  worth 
of  peaches  from  less  than  4  acres,  and  another  man  is  said  to  have 
sold  $4,700  worth  from  10  acres.  The  average  value  of  the  peaches 
from  Mr.  Lay's  orchard  for  five  years,  1876-'80,  was  $213  per  acre.'* 

At  Lawtou,  Mich.,  in  1880,  the  peaches  from  10  acres  of  five-year- 
old  trees  sold  for  $250  per  acre.^ 

I  have  no  data  concerning  the  profits  of  California  orchards,  but  pre- 
sume an  equally  good  showing  might  be  made. 

•value  of  peach  fabms. 

When  on  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Peninsula  I  made  careful 
inquiry  as  to  the  value  of  peach  farms  in  districts  unaffected  or  but  re- 
cently affected  by  yellows.  Eeal  estate  is  dull  and  sales  are  slow,  but 
peach  farms  bring  more  than  any  other. 

The  ''Cassiday"  or  "Peach  Blossom"  farm,  on  Sassafras  Eiver,  in 
Cecil  County,  contains  about  663  acres,  and  has  been  sold  several  times 
within  the  last  thirty  years,  each  time  for  about  $50  per  acre.  In  Sas- 
safras Neck,  good  farms  with  buildings  are  worth  from  $40  to  $70  per 
acre.    In  some  instances  offers  of  $100  an  acre  would  be  refused. 

About  Chestertown  good  peach  farms  are  worth  from  $70  to  $100  per 
acre.  Plenty  could  be  bought  for  $70.  Recently,  in  the  upper  part  of 
Queen  Anne  County,  a  farm  brought  $73  per  acre  at  a  forced  sale,  and 

'  Historij  of  Saint  Joseph,  by  D.  A.  Winslow. 
-I  hid. 

■^Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Mich.  Pom.  Soc,  1874,  p.  511. 
*  Ann.  Rep.  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Mich.  State  Hort.  Soc,  1880,  p.  27G, 
'^History  of  Michiyan  Horticulture,  T.  T.  Lyon,  p.  270. 


112  SPECIAL    KEPORT    ON   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

good  peach  farms  will  readily  bring  that  sum,  while  maoy  peach-growers 
would  not  sell  for  less  thau  $100  per  acre. 

In  Spaniard's  'Sack  the  well-established  peach  farms  are  worth  from 
170  to  $100  per  acre.  Land  at  some  distance  from  the  river  and  not 
well  adapted  to  peaches  is  worth  much  less. 

The  peach  farm  now  occupied  by  William  Hudson,  at  Clayton,  Del., 
contains  222  acres,  and  was  bought  in  1883  at  $130  per  acre,  100  acres 
being  in  bearing  orchard. 

Good  peach  farms,  situated  within  a  few  miles  of  Dover,  are  worth 
from  $75  to  $100  i^er  acre.  A  few  might  be  bought  as  low  as  $50  or 
$G0. 

Peach  farms  in  the  vicinity  of  INIagnolia  are  worth  from  $75  to  $100 
per  acre. 

DEPRECIATION   OF   REAL   ESTATE   DUE   TO   YELLOWS. 

This  has  been  marked  in  some  sections.  Real  estate  is  undoubtedly 
dull  the  country  over,  owing  to  various  causes  ;  but  that  there  has  been 
a  marked  depreciation  in  values  in  upper  Maryland  and  Delaware,  due 
solelj'  to  the  ravages  of  yellows,  can  not  be  denied.  It  is  too  patent. 
In  places  where  the  disease  has  prevailed  most  destructively  it  would 
now  be  hard  to  sell  a  peach  farm  at  any  price.  Buyers  do  not  care  to 
invest;  the  risk  is  too  great.  Owing  to  the  prevalence  of  this  disease 
many  farms  will  not  now  sell  for  over  one-half  or  two-thirds  as  much 
as  they  would  have  brought  five  years  ago.  In  sections  where  yellows 
has  entirely  destroyed  the  orchards  or  rendered  peach-growing  preca- 
rious and  unprofitable,  farms  are  now  worth  on  an  average  about  one- 
half  what  they  were  formerly. 

Farms  about  Middletown,  Townsend,  McDonough,  and  Odessa  arc 
now^  worth  from  $50  to  $80  per  acre.  Fifteen  or  twenty  years  ago,  when 
peach-growing  was  at  its  height  in  this  section,  real  estate  brought  fabu- 
lous i)rices,  but  usually  paid  for  itself  in  peacfces  within  a  few^  years. 

In  October,  18GG,  near  McDonough,  170  acres  of  poor  land,  without 
fences,  brought  $120  an  acre  at  public  sale. 

In  1807  Mr.  G.  W.  Karsner's  farm  of  300  acres,  near  McDonough, 
was  assessed  at  $150,  and  valued  by  some  at  $250  per  acre.  This  farm 
was  bought  in  1832  for  $14  per  acre. 

In  18G7  a  farm  of  150  acres,  2  miles  east  of  Odessa,  sold  for  $199  an 
acre,  and  at  that  time  the  upland  portion  (150  acres)  of  Mr.  E.  C.  Feu- 
nimore's  farm  would  undoubtedly  have  sold  for  over  $300  per  acre. 
This  farm,  lying  on  Delaware  River,  contains  800  acres,  G50  being  marsh 
and  the  rest  sandy  upland  with  red  clay  subsoil.  It  was  sold  in  1832 
as  part  of  a  tract  of  2,800  acres  for  93  cents  an  acre,  and  again  in  1853 
to  Mr.  Fennimore,  when  its  value  for  peach-growing  was  understood, 
for  $25  an  acre,  marsh  and  all. 

In  1874  the  peach  fiirm  of  j\Ir.  Serrick  Shallcross,  near  Middletown, 
containing  over  1,000  acres,  was  valued  at  $150  per  acre. 

At  about  the  same  time  Mr.  Shallcross  bought  three  farms  to  put  into 
peaches,  paying  $15G,  $127,  and  $120  i)er  acre.     At  that  time,  about 


PROSPERITV    DIMINI8IIED    BY    YELLOWS.  113 

Middk'town  iiiitl  McDoiioiigli,  land  of  any  sort  suitable  for  peaches  sold 
readily,  even  witboiit  buildings,  at  from  $100  to  $125  per  acre. 

The  depression  of  real-estate  values  in  Berrien  County,  Mich.,  subse- 
quent to  the  loss  of  the  orchards  was  also  very  great,  and  many  persons 
were  tinancially  ruined,  but  I  have  not  euougli  data  to  render  it  worth 
while  to  consider  it  at  length.  During  the  flush  peach  times  real  es- 
tate in  southwest  Michigan  changed  hands  at  prices  fully  equal  to  those 
which  prevailed  in  Delaware. 

Should  peach  yellows  sweep  away  the  maguiiicent  orchards  of  the 
middle  part  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  peninsula,  as  it  did  those 
of  New  Castle  County,  Del.,  and  Berrien  County,  IMicl).,  the  effect,  not 
only  on  the  price  of  lands,  but  also  on  railroad  and  steam  boat  traftlc 
and  on  the  general  prosi)erity  of  the  peninsula,  n)ust  be  very  great. 
Growers  whose  farms  are  mortgaged  would  be  tinancially  ruined  and 
life  would  be  harder  for  every  inhabitant.  Tiiis  would  be  true  es- 
peciall}'  of  the  poorer  classes,  man}'  of  whom  are  supported  almost  en- 
tirely by  the  peach  industry.  The  single  item  of  the  carrying  trade 
amounts  to  thousands  of  dollars  annually,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  table 
of  shi[)raents  by  railroad,  and  this  is  only  one  of  many  items.  In  a 
word,  the  prosperity  of  nearly  every  business  interest  on  the  peninsula 
hinges  on  the  peach  industry. 

That  the  peach  orchards  are  really  in  danger  of  being  destroyed  must 
be  apparent  to  any  one  conversant  with  the  facts,  or  to  any  one  who 
will  carefully  examine  the  data  presented  in  this  report.  In  the  cele- 
brated Sassafras  River  region,  and  al5>o  in  all  the  upper  part  of  Kent 
County,  Del.,  there  will  not  in  five  years  be  a  single  productive  orchard 
over  six  years  of  age  if  yellows  continues  to  spread  as  rapidly  as  it  has 
done  for  the  last  three  years.  I  have  no  desire  to  present  a  sensational 
or  gloomy  view,  but  I  give  this  as  my  deliberate  judgment,  after  six- 
teen mouths'  continuous  study  of  the  subject,  with  every  opportunity 
to  examine  peninsular  orchards. 

Either  of  two  things  may  possibly  avert  this  dreaded  result: 

(1)  The  application  of  some  remedy  or  preventive. 

(2)  The  disappearance  of  the  virulence  of  the  disease  from  unknown 
natural  causes. 

In  my  judgment  we  are  already  in  possession  of  knowledge  available 
for  a  partial  sui)pression  of  tlje  disease,  but,  from  a  wide  acquaintance 
with  the  peninsular  peach  growers  and  some  knowledge  of  human  na- 
ture, I  am  inclined  to  think  it  can  be  reduced  to  practice  only  in  sec- 
tions but  recently  invaded,  /.  c,  toward  the  lower  part  of  the  peninsula 
(see  Prevention). 

1124.J— Xo.  0 8 


114  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

IV.  CONDITIONS  KNOWN  OR  SUPPOSED  TO  FAVOR  THE  DISEASE. 

CLIMATIC   CONDITIONS. 
The   NGN  ADAPTATION  OF  THE  PEACH  TO   OUR  CLIMATE. — From  the 

foregoiug  section  upon  history  and  distribution,  and  especially  from 
that  part  devoted  to  the  early  history  of  the  peach  in  the  United  States, 
it  mnst  be  apparent  that  portions  of  this  country  are  well  suited  to  this 
fruit.  Otherwise  it  never  could  have  gained  such  an  early  strong  foot- 
hold or  flourished  in  the  open  air  unprotected  as  it  has  done. 

The  peach  is  undoubtedly  of  Asiatic  origin,  but  neither  in  China  nor 
on  the  table-lands  of  Persia  does  it  appear  to  be  more  at  home  than  in 
parts  of  the  United  States;  and  this  might  be  expected  from  the  fact 
that  we  are  in  the  same  zone  and  under  climatic  conditions  not  mark- 
edly different  from  those  existing  in  the  middle  latitudes  of  Asia. 

From  the  recent  suggestion  by  Professor  Budd,^  and  the  earlier  one 
by  Dr.  Emerson,^  that  yellows  may  be  a  disease  of  non  acclimatization, 
it  is  worth  while  to  inquire  (1)  what  constitutes  acclimatization?  (2) 
what  indicates  that  Asiatic  peaches  are  hardier  than  our  own? 

It  ought  not  to  be  difficult  to  determine  whether  a  cultivated  tree 
takes  kindly  to  a  climate.  I  know  no  more  certain  proof  than  that  it 
makes  a  vigorous  growth,  is  productive,  attains  the  usual  longevity  of 
its  species,  and  is  capable  of  maintaining  itself  to  a  considerable  extent 
outside  of  cultivation,  in  fence-rows,  hedges,  and  other  neglected  places. 
Ill  the  more  favored  parts  of  this  country  the  peach  fulfills  all  these  con- 
ditions, and  has  done  so  far  for  more  than  two  centuries.  In  my  exam- 
inations on  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  peninsula  in  1887  and  1888 
I  saw  at  least  fifty  orchards  of  ages  ranging  from  twenty  to  thirty  years, 
and  1  saw  a  few  still  older.  Such  orchards  are  by  no  means  infrequent, 
except  where  yellows  has  prevailed  for  a  long  time.  Even  in  the  rela- 
tively severe  climate  of  Michigan  orchards  have  lived  twenty-five  and 
thirty  years.  The  average  age  of  the  orchards  in  JNIaryland  and  Dela- 
ware is  only  about  sixteen  years,  but  tliis  is  to  be  attributed  to  over- 
production and  neglect  rather  than  to  climate.  If  our  trees  were  pruned 
as  carefully  as  European  trees  they  would  undoubtedly  live  as  long. 
Even  without  special  care  they  sometimes  reach  a  great  age.  There 
are  well-authenticated  cases  on  the  Atlantic  coast  of  peach  trees  which 
have  lived  forty  or  even  fifty  years,  and  George  Thurbur  mentions  one  in 
Virginia  which  reached  the  age  of  seventy  years. 

That  Chinese  peaches  are  more  hardy  than  our  own  is  a  belief  rather 
than  a  well-established  fact.  They  are  certainly  inferior  in  flavor  aud 
probably  not  hardier  than  the  commonly  cultivated  "■  Persian  "  sorts.  I 
have  myself  this  year  seen  well-marked  yellows  in  Xorth  China  peaches 
growing  in  Delaware,  and  have  no  doubt  that  Chinese  peaches  will 
prove,  subject  to  all  the  diseases  incident  to  other  races,  and  on  a  priori 

I  ropnhtr  (lar(le:iiiitj,  BidiUlo,  N.  Y.,  July  or  August,  1«8S. 
-'  I'loc.  of  the  Am.  Pom.  Soc.  1869. 


CLIMATE    AND    YELLOWS.  115 

groiuuls,  in  tbc  absence  of  sufficient  well-authenticated  information,  I 
Lave  no  doubt  that  in  China  itself  they  are  subject  to  various  diseases, 
especially  where  grown  in  quantity.  Certain,  at  least,  is  the  fact  that 
in  the  North  Island  of  New  Zealand  the  peach  has  been  nearly  exter- 
minated within  tlie  last  ten  years  by  some  mysterious  blight. 
•  Nevertheless,  with  some  show  of  reason,  peach  yellows  has  been  at- 
tributed to  various  unfavorable  climatic  conditions.  The  relation  of 
these  conditions  to  yellows  will,  therefore,  be  discussed  in  the  following 
pages.  Four  theories  have  received  most  frequent  mention  by  writers 
on  this  subject,  and  as  no  proofs  or  valid  arguaients  have  been  ad- 
vanced in  favor  of  any  others  it  will  be  sufficient  to  restrict  attention 
to  these  four,  with  a  view  to  determine,  if  possible,  just  what  relation 
these  supi)0sed  causes  bear  to  the  disease. 

Supposed  general  change  in  climatic  conditions. — This  the- 
ory may  be  dismissed  with  a  word  or  two.  It  is  easy  to  propound  and 
difficult  to  establish.  In  reference  thereto  it  may  be  said  :  (1)  There  is 
no  evidence  of  any  marked  change  in  the  climate  of  the  United  States 
during  the  last  one  hundred  yoars ;  and  (2)  if  tliere  were,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  outbreaks  of  peach  yellows  have  conformed  to  any 
such  change.  We  may,  therefore,  set  aside  this  theory  until  evidence 
is  adduced  in  proof  of  both  propositions. 

•  Early  autumn  frosts. — This  theory  has  been  urged  with  more 
show  of  reason.  When  we  reflect  upon  the  function  of  the  leaves,  and 
on  the  nice  balance  between  roots  and  foliage  which  is  necessary  for  the 
health  of  a  growing  tree,  it  is  evident  that  an}-  premature  destruction 
of  the  foliage  must  not  only  affect  the  maturing  wood,  but  also  more  or 
less  seriously  injure  the  whole  plant.  With  this  fact  in  mind,  I  have 
given  careful  attention  to  the  subject,  the  more  because  some  very  con- 
siderable authorities  in  horticulture  have  favored  this  theory,  and  have 
stated  by  way  of  proof  that  this  disease  never  occurs  in  the  South  or 
when  the  peach  is  grown  under  glass. 

After  careful  inquiry  my  conclusion  is  that  early  frosts  have  nothing 
wluitever  to  do  with  yellows.  This  conclusion  is  based,  in  i)art,  upon 
the  following  facts: 

(1)  In  the  peach  districts  ot  Michigan  severe  frosts  sometimes  occur 
in  August  and  often  in  September,  i.  e.,  before  the  leaves  have  fallen  ; 
yet  there  are  localities  where  peach  trees  have  been  grown  continuously 
fur  thirty  years,  and  where  yellows  has  not  yet  appeared. 

(2)  In  the  region  of  the  Great  Lakes  early  frosts  have  not  been  con- 
fined to  recent  years,  yet  peach  yellows  did  not  appear  there  until 
quite  recently,  i.  e.,  in  southwestern  Michigan  in  18G0  ;  in  northern  Ohio 
in  1878;  in  Ontario  in  187G. 

(3)  On  the  shore  of  Long  Island  Sound,  in  the  vicinity  of  New  Haven, 
Conn.,  peach  yellows  was  very  prevalent  between  1831  and  1810;  yet, 
during  the  entire  period  of  sixteen  years,  at  Midclletown,  in  the  interior 


lie, 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


of  the  State  but  not  far  removed,  there  was  but  one  severe  frost  as  early 
as  September.     The  record  for  twenty-four  years  is  as  follows: 

Table  XIV. — An fuDUi  frosts  ul  Middhlown,  Conn.    L<it'dudc  Al-  '^'i'  S" . 
[From  the  nieteorol  gical  lecoid  kept  liy  J.  Barrat,  M.D.'I 


Year. 

First  severe  frost. 

Tear. 
1843... 

First  severe  frost. 

1831.- 

NovcTObcr  4. 

October  15. 

1832.. 

October  29. 

]814... 

October  2  pikI  '.'l. 

1833. 

(?)" 

1815... 

October  IG. 

1834.. 

October  10. 

1840.. 

October  20. 

1835.. 

October  20. 

1S47..- 

October  12  aud  16. 

1836.. 

September  30. 

1848.. . 

September  :J0. 

1837.. 

October  .">. 

1840... 

November  1. 

1838. 

October  8. 

1850... 

October  14.                       | 

1839-- 

October  5. 

1851.-. 

September  25. 

1840.. 

October  16. 

1852   .. 

October  16  and  17. 

1841.. 

October  14. 

18.-)3... 

(0 

1842.. 

October  7. 

1  1854... 

October  21. 

*  First  ligbt  frost  September  14. 

(4)  On  the  upper  part  of  the  Delaware  andChesapeakepeiiinsula  peach 
yellows  has  appeared  within  the  last  three  years  in  a  great  many  young 
orchards,  often  affecting  hundreds  of  trees  in  a  single  orchard  in  one 
year.  In  18S7  and  in  1888  I  saw  it  repeatedly  in  trees  sot  only  three 
or  four  years,  and  occasioually  in  still  younger  trees,  most  ot  which 
were  health}'  in  1887.  In  connection  with  these  facts  I  made  inquiries 
to  determine  (1)  the  exact  dates  at  which  early  frosts  have  occurred  in 
recent  years,  and  (2)  whether  usually,  or  occasioually,  the  peach  is 
Jable  to  lose  its  foliage  prematurely,  i.  e.,  while  its  buds  and  wood  are 
immature.  In  1887  and  ]888  I  supplemented  these  inquiries  by  obser- 
vations of  my  own. 

At  Dover  and  Clayton  weather  records  have  been  kept  for  a  number 
of  years,  and  these  show  that  there  have  been  no  severe  early  fio.sts, 
certainly  none  that  serve  in  the  least  to  explain  the  sudden  widespread 
devastation  of  the  orchards  by  yellows.  Below  is  a  synopsis  from  these 
records: 


1  Trans,  of  the  Conn.  State  Agric.  fiocictij,  I'ibA,  p.  13L 


VELL0W8  AND  AUTUMN  FROSTS, 


117 


Table  XV. — Autumn  frosts  at  Dover,  Del     Latitude  20"^  IV. 

[From  a  coutimious  recoril  by  Jolin  S.  Jester.  Obspfvatioi.s  at  5  a.  m,  12  m.,  2  p.  m  ,  and  9  p.  m.  Tlie 
thermometer  is  exposed  at  about  5  feet  from  tbo  ground.  lu  low  places  in  orcharda  the  temperature 
would  be  a  few  degrees  lower.] 


Date. 

Lowest 
tempera- 
ture. 

;              Eemarks. 

1«85. 

Degrees. 

Aug 

4G 

No  frosts. 

Sept.  24.. 

40 

First  frost,  light. 

Oct.  7.... 

40 

Frost. 

Oct.  10... 

38 

Do. 

Oct.  11... 

40 

Do. 

Oct.  22-26 

38-40 

Five  frosts. 

Oct.  31... 

38 

Frost. 

Nov.  1... 

36 

Do. 

Nov.  16.. 

3i 

Do. 

Nov.  22.. 

18SG. 

32 

Tem))eratnre  first 
reached  freezing.          ! 

Aug 

52 

No  frosts. 

Sept.  20.. 

38 

First  and  oulv  frost, 
light. 

Oct.  2.... 

36  t 

Light  frost. 

Oct.  3.... 

38 : 

Do.                              j 

Oct.  4.... 

40 

Do.                           ; 

Oct.  17... 

30 

Hard  frost. 

Oct.  22... 

38 

Prost. 

Nov.  5... 

32 

Freeziugweatbersetin. 

Date. 


Lowest 
tempera- 
ture. 


1887. 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct.  13... 

Oct.  14... 

Oct.  15... 

Oct.  10... 

Oct.  22.  .. 

Oct.  23... 

Oct.  31... 

Nov.  1... 

Nov.  2... 
Nov.  3  .. 
Nov.  5... 
Nov.  6.  . . 
Nov.  9  .. 
Nov.  10.. 
Nov.  11.. 
Nov.  12.. 
Nov.13-14 
Nov.  18-23 
Nov.28-30 


Degrees. 
.00 
4G 
40 
42 
31 
30 
40 
32 
34 
42 
28 
38 
32 
26 
32 
40 
34 
40 


Kemarks. 


No  frosts. 

Do. 
First  frost,  light. 
Light  frost. 
Hard  frost. 

Do. 
Light  frost. 
Hard  frost. 

Do. 
Light  frost. 
Hard  frost. 
Light  frost. 
Hard  frost. 
Do. 
Do. 
Light  frost. 
Hard  frost. 
Light  frost. 
Two  hard  frosts. 
Six  hard  frosts. 
Three  hard  frosts. 


118 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


Table  X\I.— Autumn  frosts  at  Claijtou,  Del.     Lalilude  39-^ . 

[From  records  kept  iu  the  office  of  the  superintendent  of  tlio  Dol;iwaro  divi.siou  of  llie  Pliiliid'  Ipliia, 
"Wiiiuinfrfon  and  ISaltiinore  Kaihoad.  Observations  at  6.30  to  7.30  a.  ni.,  9  a.  ni..  12  in..  3  p.  m.,  5  or  6 
p.ni  ,  and  7.30  to  9  p.m.  Sunday  records  of  teraperaturo  mostly  wantinj;.  Metallic  bo.\  tlicim'onieter 
esposetl  at  north  window  about  7  feet  from  ground.  J 


Date. 

Lowest 
tempera- 
ture. 

Remarks. 

Dale. 

Lowest 

tempeia- 

turo. 

Eemarks. 

1885. 
Aug    ... 
Sept.  24.. 

Oct.  10... 
Oct.  22-28 
Nov.  11. 
Nov.  14.. 
Nov.  15.. 
Nov.  16.. 
Nov.  17-. 
Nov.  20.. 

1886. 
Aug.... 

Sept 

Oct.  2.... 

Oct.  3.... 

Degrees. 
51 
45 

40 
38-44 
36 
36 
*36 
32 
32 
30 

63 
54 

43 

No  frosts. 

May  have  been  a  light 
frost. 

First  bard  frost. 

Seven  hard  frosts. 

Hard  frost. 

Do. 
Clear  and  very  cold.        | 
Clear  and  cold.                  ! 

Do.                              ' 

No  frosts.                           I 

Do. 

Clear   and    cool ;     first 
float. 

Clear    and    cool ;    may 
have     been     another  | 
light  frost. 

Sunday ;    probably   an- 
other light  frost. 

1886. 
Oct.  17... 

Degrees. 

Clear  and  cool ;   prob- 
ably a  frost. 

Clear:  probably  a  frost. 

Judging  from  tempera- 
ture records,  fieezing 
weather  set  in  at  this 
date. 

No  frost  .s. 

Possibly  light  frosts. 

Do. 
Probably  light  frost. 
Frost. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 
Probably  a  frost. 
Hard  frost. 
First  ice  observed. 

Oct.  22... 
Nov.  5  . . 

1837. 
Aug.... 
Sept.  24.. 
Sept.  25.. 

44 
33 

55 
44 

Oct.  12... 
Oct.  13... 
Oct.  14  . . 
Oct.  15... 
Oct.  16... 

44 
47 
45 
37 

Oct.  22  .. 
Oct  23 1 

40 

Oct.  4 

Nov.'  2... 

32 

'At  6  p.  m.    t  Cloudy  and  rainy  nearly  all  the  rest  of  the  month  ;  temperature  33°-57°. 


At  Still  Pond,  Md.,  the  entries  in  the  journal  of  Dr.  W.  S.  Maxwell 
agree  substantially  with  the  Dover  and  Clayton  records  althougli  ther- 
raometric  readings  are  not  given.  A  daily  record  by  Dr.  Henry  Ridgely, 
of  Dover,  also  agrees  substantially  with  that  of  Mr.  Jester,  although  not 
SO  complete. 

From  these  records  it  is  clear  that  during  the  three  years  1885  to  1887 
there  were  no  frosts  iu  August  and  none  of  any  consequence  in  Septem- 
ber. In  1885  the  first  severe  frost  was  on  October  10  j  in  188G  it  was  on 
October  17;  in  1887  on  October  15;  in  1888  on  October  10. 

The  first  point  raised  is  whether  the  shoots  of  the  season  were  in  such 
an  immature  condition  at  the  time  of  these  frosts  as  to  be  seriously  in- 
jured  by  loss  of  leaves,  assuming  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  the  leaf 
function  was  entirely  suspended  after  these  dates.  The  second  point 
is  whether  the  severest  injuries  of  this  sort  can  develop  peach  yellows, 
or  anything  resembling  it. 

In  the  autumn  of  1887  I  paid  particular  attention  to  the  ripening  of 
foliage  on  deciduous  trees,  especially  on  the  peach,  and  to  the  effects  of 
the  October  and  November  frosts.  Leaves  in  some  orchards,  especially 
about  Chestertown,  Md.,  began  to  fall  in  considerable  quantities  as  early 
as  August  25,  but  this  was,  1  think,  abnormally  early. 


YELLOWS  AND  AUTUMN  FROSTS.  119 

At  Dover,  in  the  McDaiiiel  orcbard  (see  Map  VJ),  by  September  27 
from  one-third  to  two  thirds  of  the  lea  res  on  all  the  lower  branches  had 
already  fallen,  and  those  remaining  on  these  branches  (except  the  ter- 
minal ones)  detached  very  readily  when  the  shoots  were  seized  at  the 
base  and  drawn  gently  throngh  the  half  closed  hand,  thus  showing  that 
though  still  green  their  work  was  very  nearly  completed.  Someof  tlie 
smaller  branches  had  already  lost  all  their  leaves.  The  branches  on 
the  tops  of  the  trees  were  yet  tliickly  covered  with  green  leaves,  but 
tlie  buds  were  well  developed  and  the  twigs  had  an  appearance  of  ma- 
turity. On  an  average  the  trees  in  this  orchard  had  lost  about  one- 
fourth  of  their  leaves. 

At  Clayton,  in  an  old  orchard  owned  by  Alfred  Hudson,  and  consid- 
erably injured  by  yellows,  the  leaves  had  nearly  all  lallen  by  October  4. 
The  early  varieties  shed  first.  Smocks  and  some  other  late  sorts  re- 
tained quite  a  sprinkling  of  green.  On  many  trees  in  this  orchard  there 
was  not  a  leaf,  and  on  an  average  about  four-fifths  of  all  the  foliage  had 
fallen.  Such  was  substantially  the  condition  of  other  bearing  orchards 
examined  at  that  time  in  that  locality.  The  young  orchards  were 
greener.  Three  days  later  I  found  that  the  trees  in  the  four  year  old 
orchard  of  John  Hudson  (No.  9  of  this  report)  had  lost  from  two-thirds  to 
nine  tenths  of  their  leaves.  On  some  varieties  there  were  more  leaves 
than  on  others.  A  one-year  old  orchard  on  the  same  farm  looked  very 
green  and  retained  most  of  its  foliage.  This  was  healthy  in  18S8,  but 
No.  9  was  badly  diseased. 

On  October  8  near  Smyrua  I  examiued  two  orchards,  each  about 
three  or  four  years  old.  They  had  shed  from  one-half  to  two-thirds  of 
their  foliage,  but  the  tops  of  many  of  the  trees  were  still  quite  green. 
From  my  window  at  Clayton  I  could  also  see  another  young  orchard  of 
many  acres.  The  lower  two-thirds  of  what  foliage  remained  was  red- 
dish brown,  the  upper  third  was  green. 

On  October  10,  near  Clayton,  in  a  very  thrifty  three-year  old  orchard 
belonging  to  John  Gault,  1  found  that  the  trees  still  retained  from  one- 
third  to  one-half  their  leaves.  Fully  one-third  were  yet  entirely  green 
and  doing  duty.  They  were  entirely  gone  from  some  shoots  and  from 
the  lower  one-half  to  two-thirds  of  most  of  the  shoots.  The  ends  of 
many  shoots  still  retained  all  their  leaves,  although  the  buds  in  their 
axils  would  probably  have  grown  if  taken  for  inoculation  in  August. 
My  memorandum  on  this  orchard  was :  If  frost  occurs  before  October  20 
it  will  catch  the  terminal  leaves,  but  I  question  whether  the  trees  will 
suffer  appreciably  thereby.  On  a  partial  examination  at  that  time  I 
found  in  this  orchard  twenty-five  trees  with  yellows,  and  many  addi- 
tional cases  developed  in  1888. 

Speaking  for  a  majority  of  the  young  orchards  about  Clayton,  in  which 
many  new  cases  of  yellows  appeared  in  1888,  it  may  be  said  that  from 
one-half  to  three-fourths  of  the  foliage  had  fallen  by  October  10,  and  in 
older  orchards  a  much  larger  proportion,  although  there  had  been  no 
frost. 


120  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YlCLLOWS. 

Variety,  age,  situation,  kind  of  fertilization,  time  and  manner  of  cul- 
tivation, and  the  production  of  fruit  all  have  mucli  to  do  in  determining 
how  early  the  leaves  shall  fall. 

In  1887,  judging  by  the  number  of  leaves  which  had  fallen,  and  by  the 
appearance  of  the  young  wood,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  peach 
trees  on  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeke  Peninsula  were  well  out  of  harm's 
way  before  the  first  frost.  If  this  is  true  of  1887,  it  is  uudoubtedly  true 
also  of  1885  and  1880,  and  these  frosts  can  not  have  been  the  cause  of 
this  outbreak  of  yellows.  Indeed,  on  general  princii)les  it  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  even  very  early  and  killing  frosts  will  produce  peach 
yellows.  The  burden  of  proof  is  all  on  the  side  of  those  who  support 
this  theorj'. 

In  Washington,  D.  C,  especially  where  somewhat  shaded  or  protected 
by  buildings,  peach  trees  retained  their  foliage  much  longer  than  in  the 
open  field.  The  first  severe  frost  occurred  October  16,  at  which  time 
many  of  the  trees  were  yet  in  nearly  full  leaf.  Between  this  date  and 
October  30,  especially  after  a  heavy  rain,  the  leaves  fell  rapidly,  but 
were  not  all  gone  or  all  yellow^  until  about  November  7,  although  there 
were  a  number  of  severe  frosts. 

Cold  Winters.— The  winter  of  1880-'S1  was  unusually  severe.  On 
the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Peninsula  in  January  the  temperature 
fell  to  12°  below  zero  P.,  a  very  unusual  occurrence.  The  fruit  buds 
were  nearly  all  destroyed.  Many  trees  were  killed  outright.  Thousands 
more  were  badly  injured  and  have  not  recovered  to  this  day.  Many  per- 
sons  have  attributed  the  recent  alarming  increase  of  yellows  to  this 
severe  winter.  It  has  also  been  asserted  that  in  New  Jersey  and  upper 
Delaware  a  corresponding  increase  of  yellows  followed  the  severe  winter 
ol'  185G-'37.  In  Berrien  County,  Mich.,  the  increase  of  yellows  was  also 
ascribed  to  the  severe  winters  of  1872-'73  and  1874-'75. 

This  theory  appears  more  tangible  than  the  preceding,  because  the 
effect  of  hard  freezes  is  very  apparent  in  injured  bark  and  discolored 
wood,  and  because  dark  heart-wood  is  not  infrequent  in  trees  suffering 
froi.i  yellows.  It  has  been  a  favorite  theory  with  many  writers.  They 
have  insisted  that  yellows  is  very  strictly  a  disease  of  northern  climates, 
naturally  unsuited  to  the  peach,  the  fact  or  supposed  fact  that  the  dis- 
ease did  not  prevail  in  middle  Delaware  or  in  the  Southern  States  being 
cited  as  ample  proof  of  this.  Dr.  Emerson  and  Mr.  Hovey,  in  particu- 
lar, cite  the  very  part  of  Delaware  now  badly  affected  as  proof  that  a 
mild  climate  is  a  safeguard.^ 

It  is  probable  that  anything  which  reduces  the  vitality  of  a  tree  will 
render  it  more  susceptible  to  disease,  and  in  this  way  severe  winters 
may  have  exerted  an  evil  influence ;  but  that  any  degree  of  cold,  or  any 
sudden  change  of  temperature,  can  of  itself  cause  peach  yellows  is,  I 
think,  imi>ossible.     The  following  reasons  seem  to  be  conclusive  : 

(1)  If  peach  yellows  is  due  to  severe  freezes  it  ought  not  to  have 
I  Proc.  of  the  Am.  Pom.  Soc,  1869,  p.  153 ;  and  Trans.  Mass.  Uort.  Soc,  1862,  Part  I,  p.  142. 


YELL0W8    AND    SEVERE    WINTERS.  121 

appeared  first  in  centers  of  cnlti ration,  but  rather  on  northern  border 
regions,  where  severe  winters  are  of  more  frequent  occurrence.  The 
whole  history  of  tlie  disease  shows  the  reverse  of  this  to  be  true, 

(2)  On  such  an  assumption,  peach  yellows  ought  not  to  a])pear  at  all 
in  mild  southern  climates,  yet  it  has  been  present  for  a  number  of  years 
in  Georgia,  on  nearly  the  southern  limit  of  the  successful  culture  of  the 
peach,  at  least  of  the  so  called  "Persiau"  peaches,  the  only  race  yet 
grown  to  any  great  extent  in  this  country.  In  this  connection  it  is  also 
well  to  remember  that  the  peach  is  not  indigenous  to  a  warm  climate,  as 
some  writers  have  taken  for  granted.  It  flourishes  best  in  the  middle 
latitudes  of  either  hemisphere,  i.  c,  between  the  thirtieth  and  fortieth 
parallels,  and  only  exceptionally  north  or  south  of  these  boundaries. 

(3)  During  the  winter  of  185G-'57,  at  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  many 
peach  trees  were  killed  to  the  ground  or  greatly  injured.  Since  that 
date  there  have  also  been  freezes  which  much  injured  peach  trees. 
Yellows,  however,  did  not  appear  until  about  1883  and  has  never  been 
very  prevalent.  In  other  parts  of  the  State,  c.  ^.,  in  Washtenaw  County 
and  Ionia  County,  peach  trees  have  suffered  repeatedly  from  cold  win- 
ters, being  killed  back  more  often  than  not  upon  low  grounds,  yet  I 
have  never  seen  a  single  case  of  yellows  resulting  therefrom.  At 
Sirring  Lake,  near  Grand  Haven,  a  succession  of  severe  winters  between 
1870  and  1880  greatly  injured  peach  trees  and  practically  put  a  stop  to 
the  planting  of  orchards,  but  yellows  did  not  become  prevalent  in  con- 
sequence, and  has  never  proved  a  serious  evil.  JSTevertheless,  in  Berrien 
County,  near  the  same  great  body  of  water  and  70  miles  farther  south, 
the  orchards  were  entirely  destroyed  by  yellows  during  the  same  period. 
Here  are  two  localities  subject  to  the  same  rigors  of  climate.  When  the 
supposed  cause  has  been  acting  in  both  localities  why  has  the  disease 
prevailed  only  in  one? 

(4)  Sussex  County,  Del.,  is  almost  or  entirely  free  fro.n  yellows,  un- 
less it  be  that  portion  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Milford,  yet  it  was 
as  much  subject  to  the  severe  winter  of  1880-'81  as  Kent  County. 

Seaford  is  only  about  35  miles  south  of  Dover,  and  the  difference  in 
elevation  is  so  trifling  that  they  may  be  said  to  be  subject  to  the  same 
temperature,  especially  during  cold  waves.  Dover  has  suffered  severely 
from  peach  yellows  for  three  years  while  Seaford  has  been  entirely  free. 
In  August,  188S,  I  visited  Seaford,  talked  with  many  growers,  and  ex- 
amined about  thirty  orchards,  some  of  them  very  carefully.  I  did  not 
see  a  single  premature  peach  or  any  well-defined  case  of  yellows,  and 
did  not  hear  of  any.  Most  of  the  growers  are  entirely  ignorant  of  the 
symptoms  and  effects  of  this  disease,  so  far  as  personal  experience  goes. 
The  only  suspicious  trees  I  saw  were  a  few  in  thrifty  young  orchards 
recently  imported  from  New  Jersey. 

About  Seaford  are  many  old  orchards  which  were  seriously  injured 
by  the  hard  winter  and  which  still  show  its  effects  in  discolored  or  dozy 
heart-wood  and  partially  dead  limbs  and  trunk. 


122  SPECIAL    KEPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

One  of  the  orchards  of  William  E.  Cannon  was  of  special  interest, 
because  it  was  very  badly  injured  by  the  winter  in  question.  The 
orchard  was  then  three  years  old.  Some  of  the  trees  died,  and  none 
of  them  have  entirely  recovered.  The  trees  lost  large  patches  of  bark 
from  trunk  and  limbs,  and  the  year's  wood  was  frozen  brown,  and  has 
since  become  dozy  or  rotten,  frequently  involving  all  the  annual  rings 
except  those  laid  down  within  a  year  or  two.  There  is  much  dead 
wood,  and  a  slight  pull  breaks  down  large  growing  limbs.  Neverthe- 
less, the  foliage  was  green  and  full  grown,  and  the  orchard  bore  peaches 
and  looked  as  if  it  might  continue  to  bear  for  a  number  of  years.  This 
orchard  now  contains  five  or  six  hundred  trees;  originally,  seven  hun- 
dred.    I  carefully  examined  each  one,  but  found  not  a  trace  of  yellows. 

An  orchard  twenty-four  years  old,  belonging  to  Charles  Wright, 
was  also  badly  injured  by  the  winter  and  has  never  entirely  recovered. 
It  contained,  originally,  about  eight  hundred  trees,  seventy-five  of  which 
are  now  missing.  There  are  many  partially  decaj^ed  branches  and  some 
dead  trees,  and  all  are  lichen-covered.  The  orchard  bore  peaches,  and 
will,  no  doubt,  continue  to  bear  for  a  number  of  years.  I  carefully  exam- 
ined every  tree,  but  found  not  a  trace  of  yellows.  On  the  same  farm  is  an 
orchard  of  one  thousand  seven  hundred  trees  .now  fifteen  years  old. 
This  was  also  badly  injured  by  the  winter,  and  looks  more  ragged  and 
broken  than  the  older  one,  but  yellows  has  never  appeared  in  it.  Col. 
E.  L.  Martin  also  has  two  orchards,  one  eighteen  years  old  and  the 
other  fifteen,  which  were  badly  injured  by  the  winter  of  188^^-81.  Yel- 
lows has  never  appeared  in  either,  and  the  younger  one  has  Iwrne  four 
good  crops  of  fruit  since  1880.     I  saw  both. 

The  history  of  these  orchards  is  tlje  history  of  all  the  old  orchards 
about  Seaford — all  suffered  from  the  unusual  winter,  but  none  develo[)ed 
yellows. 

Excessive  eain-fall.— As  long  ago  as  1807,  Judge  Peters  observed 
that  yellows  was  unusually  prevalent  during  two  successive  rainy  sea- 
sons, and  concluded  that  excessive  moisture  had  something  to  do  with 
the  disease.  Since  his  time  many  have  held  the  same  view,  although 
not  much  evidence  appears  to  have  been  brought  forward  to  sustain  it. 
Mr.  Ruttor,  however,  states  that  yellows  was  very  prevalent  in  West 
Chester  during  the  rainy  season  of  1878.  Whether  the  former  great 
outbreaks  in  Upper  Delaware,  in  New  Jersey,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
Ontario,  and  Michigan  occurred  during  rainy  seasons  is  uncertain.  I 
have  found  no  trustworthy  evidence  of  such  coincidence.  On  the  con- 
trary, Charles  W.  Garfield  states  that  yellows  was  much  worse  at  Saint 
Josepli,  Mich.,  in  two  excessively  dry  seasons,  1871  and  1872.^ 

Careful  rain-fall  records  in  inches  are  not  kepton  the  Chesapeake  and 
Delaware  Peninsula,  so  far  as  I  know  ;  but  from  general  entries  in  sev- 
eral weather  records  and  from  newspaper  paragraphs  and  the  state- 
ments of  many  trustworthy  persons,  it  is  beyond  question  that  in  the 

M«H.  Re^.  of  the  Se&y  of  the  Mich.  State  Pom.  Societtj,  1872,  j>.  278. 


YELLOWS  AND  EXCESSIVE  RAIN-FALL'.  123 

vicinity  of  Dover  and  Still  Pond,  and  in  fact  over  all  tbo  upper  part  of 
tbe  Peninsula,  there  was  excessive  rain-fall  both  in  1880  and  1887.  As 
regards  1887,  my  owu  observations  contirni  these  statements.  It  was 
very  rainy— hay  was  a  large  crop  ;  corn-fields  could  not  be  properly  cul- 
tivated ;  wheat  spoiled  in  the  shock  ;  weeds  grew  amazingly  ;  and  the 
peach  tree  itself  made  a  much  larger  growth  than  in  1888.  According' 
to  Dr.  Henry  Ridgley's  daily  record  the  exceedingly  rainy  months  of 
188G  were  May,  June,  and  July ;  and  tlie  months  in  1887  in  which  most 
rain  fell  were  April,  June,  July,  and  August.  In  1887  the  last  one-half 
of  April,  the  whole  of  July,  and  the  first  two-thirds  of  August  were 
especially  wet,  the  July  rain-fall  being  enormous.  In  a  general  way  the 
rain  charts  of  the  Signal  Service  confirm  these  statements,  and  would 
undoubtedly  be  shaded  still  more  deeply  iu  this  region  were  they  based 
on  a  larger  number  of  observations.  Coincident  with  these  two  rainy 
seasons  was  a  marked  increase  of  ]>each  yellows,  which  seemed  attrib- 
utable thereto  and  was  so  attributed,  very  commonly. 

One  could  not  help  noting*  such  a  striking  coincidence  or  avoid  being- 
influenced  by  it.  Until  this  year,  therefore,  T  held  the  view  that  excess- 
ive rainfall,  while  not  the  cause  of  the  yellows,  w^as  a  necessary  factor 
iu  its  rapid  dissemination.  It  seemed  wise,  however,  to  follow  the  prog- 
ress of  the  disease  another  year  before  making  very  positive  assertions. 
It  was,  therefore,  with  unusual  interest  that  I  waited  the  season  of  188 S, 
lioping  it  might  be  dr^^  Fortunately,  it  was  dr^^ ;  but  a  careful  study  of 
the  disease  in  five  counties  ^showed  uo  marked  diminution  in  the  num- 
ber of  newly  infected  trees.  If  some  orchards  showed  fewer  new  cases 
than  in  1887,  others  in  the  vicinity  showed  more,  and  still  others  de- 
veloped the  disease  for  the  first  time,  often  in  many  trees  (see  record 
of  examinations  iu  numbered  orchards).  Many  other  orchards  might  be 
cited.  I  also  found  that  all  trees  diseased  in  1887  continued  to  be  dis- 
eased in  1888,  and  that  the  disease  had  invaded  contiguous  territory 
which  was  free  iu  1887. 

It  can  not,  therefore,  be  said  that  the  excessive  rain-fall  of  188G  and 
1887  was  especiallj'  favorable  to  the  spread  of  the  disease,  unless,  as  is 
quite  likely,  the  conditions  then  produced  remained  and  continued 
their  injurious  activity  in  the  dry  year  of  18S8.  It  may,  however,  bo 
stated  ivithout  qualification  that,  contrary  to  expectation,  a  dry  year 
following  the  two  wet  ones  did  not  check  the  spread  of  the  disease. 
Eainy  weather  may  have  some  influence  in  orifjinafing  a  widespread 
epiphytotic,  which  is  then  capable  of  holding  its  owu  during  succeeding 
dry  weather.  On  the  other  hand,  too  much  influence  may  have  been 
ascribed  to  wet  seasons  from  the  fact  that  diseased  trees  put  out  a  more 
abundant  growth  of  secondary  shoots  iu  such  years,  and  are  therefore 
more  easily  detected  by  ordinary  observers,  or  rather  not  so  easily 
overlooked.  In  this  particular  I  noticed  on  the  Delaware  and  Chesa- 
peake Peninsula  a  very  marked  difference  between  1887  and  1888.  In 
1  Cecil,  Kent,  and  Queen  Anne  in  Maryland,  and  New  Castleand  Kent  in  Delaware. 


124  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

18S8  the  diseased  trees  seut  out  a  scanty  growth  of  the  abnormal 
shoots  ;  iu  1887  such  growths  were  very  abundaut. 

All  thiugs  considered,  the  question  of  the  effect  of  excessive  rain-fall 
must  be  left  an  open  one.  Certainly  it  can  not  of  itself  cause  yellows, 
because  districts  only  a  few  miles  south  of  the  infected  areas  suffered 
from  veritable  floods  of  rain  and  yet  entirely  escaped  the  disease. 
Another  season  may  throw  more  light  upon  the  subject.  It  certainly 
will  if  it  is  dry. 

EARTH   COXDITIOXS. 

Exhaustion  or  Infertility  of  Soil. — The  belief  that  peach  yel- 
lows is  in  some  way  related  to  poverty  of  soil  is  not  a  new  theory.  As 
long  ago  as  1839  a  correspondent  of  The  Farmer's  Cabinet  stated  that  in 
earlier  volumes  of  that  journal  he  had  found  no  less  than  eighteen  papers 
recommending  "  alkaline  substances  for  the  prevention  or  cure  of  the 
premature  decay  of  pear  and  peach  trees."  ^  Two  years  later  Littleton 
Physic,  of  Ararat  Farm,  Cecil  County,  Md.,  highly  recommended  nitrate 
of  potash  for  peach  trees,  his  experiments  having  begun  as  early  as  1830.^ 

In  1848,  J.  W.  Bissel,  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  stated  that  there  is  a  loss  of 
lime  and  potash  in  soils  where  many  peach  trees  have  been  grown,  and 
suggested  that  yellows  might  be  due  "  to  the  absence  or  small  quantity 
of  these  alkalies."  He  had  never  seen  any  analyses  of  the  wood,  but 
suggested  that  such  be  made.  The  next  year  Professor  Emmons,  of 
Albany,  N.  Y.,  published  analyses  of  healthy  and  diseased  tissues  (see 
Appendix  A).  At  this  time  New  Jersey  peach-growers  were  also  at- 
tributing yellows  to  bad  treatment  and  jjoverty  of  soil.^  They  then 
held,  as  some  of  them  still  hold,  that  the  exhaustion  of  the  land  by  ex- 
cessive and  unintermitted  cropping  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
disease. 

An  analysis  of  healthy  branches  was  also  published  in  L851  by  Mr. 
Kirtland. 

In  1871,  Dr.  R.  C.  Kedzie,  of  Lansing,  Mich.,  visited  Benton  Harbor, 
examined  many  diseased  orchards,  and  made  analyses  of  healthy  and 
diseased  tissues  (see  Appendix  A).  He  found  in  the  diseased  tree  a 
deficiency  of  carbonate  of  potash  and  phosphate  of  lime,  but  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  composition  of  the  ash  of  the  same  plant  varies  much 
according  to  the  age  of  the  plant,  the  kind  of  soil  on  which  it  grows, 
and  the  degree  of  vigor  of  its  development,  he  declares  that  "  perhaps 
it  might  with  justice  be  said  that  the  results  of  chemical  analysis,  like 
those  of  microscopic  examination  |Dr.  W.  J.  Beal's],  are  merely  nega- 
tive."* At  about  that  date  Thomas  Meehan,  of  Germantown,  Pa., 
stated  that  Dr.  Wood,  of  the  Philosophical  Society,  had  found  that 
potash  benefited  peach  trees  attacked  by  yellows.^ 

^  Genesee  Farmer,  August  31,  1839. 

^The  Cultivator,  Albauy,  N.  Y.,  1841,  p.  128. 

^Tbe  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1848,  p.  87. 

'^Ann.  Bep.  of  the  Se&ii  of  the  Mich.  State  Pom.  Sac.,  1871,  p.  476. 

^The  Gardeners'  MonlhJij,  1872,  p.  17. 


YELLOWS    AND    SOIL    EXHAUSTION.  125 

In  1882,  Charles  Black,  a  well-known  niirserj'mau  of  Higlitstowu,  N. 
J.,  declared  that  crowding  was  one  of  the  causes  of  yellows,  and  made 
the  following  remarkable  statement :  "  If  your  trees  are  to3  thick,  [tull 
out  every  other  row,  and  as  a  rule  you  will  cure  the  yellows."  Trees 
are  sometimes  set  as  close  as  8  or  10  feet,  but  should  be  18  or  20  feet 
apart.' 

The  same  year  Dr.  Goessman,  of  Amherst,  Mass.,  published  his  four 
analyses  (see  Appendix  A)  in  connection  with  a  paper  by  Prof.  I).  P. 
Penhallow  on  the  microscopic  characteristics  of  the  disease.^  Dr.  Goess- 
man found  in  the  diseased  fruit  an  excess  of  lime  and  pliosphoricacid 
and  a  deficiency  of  magnesia  and  potash  ;  and  in  the  diseased  branches 
an  excess  of  iron,  lime,  and  magnesia,  and  a  deficiency  of  potash  and 
phosphoric  acid.  Both  gentlemen  took  the  ground  that  the  yellows  was 
due  to  a  lack  of  necessary  food  elements  in  the  soil,  and  cited  the  four 
analyses  in  proof.  A  remedial  treatment  based  on  this  theory-,  and  con- 
sisting of  liberal  doses  of  phosphates  and  of  sulphate  and  muriate  of 
potash,  was  begun  at  Amherst,  by  Professor  JMaynard,  in  1878,  and  the 
results  of  this  treatment  were  also  offered  in  proof. 

This  treatment  was  repeated  by  Professor  Penhallow,  at  Houghton 
Farm,  New  York,  the  results  there  obtained  being  embodied  in  a  special 
report  of  that  experiment  station,  which  was  published  in  1883.^ 

In  1881,  at  the  request  of  P.  M.  Augur,  State  poraologist,  the  Con- 
necticut Experiment  Station  also  made  analyses  of  diseased  and  health^'' 
peach  twigs  (see  Appendix  A),  from  which  it  appears  that  the  ash  of 
the  diseased  tissue  contained  no  excess  of  lime,  but  an  excess  of  silica  and 
other  insoluble  matters,  and  a  deficiency  of  nearly  all  the  other  constitu- 
ents. 

So  far  as  I  know  these  are  all  the  analyses  yet  published,  but  some 
interesting  additional  ones,  made  at  my  request,  will  be  found  in  Ap- 
pendix A. 

In  recent  years  Professor  Penhallow  is  the  one  who  has  insisted  most 
strenuously  on  the  correctness  of  this  soil-exhaustion  theory,  and  among 
practical  peach-growers  who  have  given  more  or  less  sanction  to  his 
views  may  be  named  H.  H.  Appleton,  Odessa,  Del. ;  John  P.  R.  Polk, 
Wilmington,  Del. ;  Eli  Miueh,  Sbiloh,  X.  J. ;  and  J.  H.  Hale,  South 
Glastonbury,  Conn.  His  treatment,  as  given  in  a  Houghton  Farm 
Bulletin,  Series  III,  Nos.  1  and  2,  and  in  a  more  recent  communication 
to  the  author,**  consists  in  the  application  of  G25  pounds  per  acre  of  a 
mixture,  by  weight,  of  1  part  of  kieserite  (crude  epsom  salts),  6  parts 
of  muriate  of  potash,  and  18  parts  of  dissolved  bone-black  (bone  black 
in  sulphuric  acid).  This  to  be  applied,  one-half  spring  and  fall,  just 
before  and  after  leafing ;  and,  if  marked  evidence  of  the  disease  is  pres- 
ent, an  additional  2  pounds  of  muriate  of  potash  must  be  given  to  each 

'Yellows  and  Peach  Culture,  Tlie  Gardeners'  Montlilij,  Phila.,  Pa.,  1882,  pp.  111,11-i. 
-Tra))s.  of  the  Mass.  Hort.  Soc,  188-i,  Part  I. 
^Experiment  Orchard  and  Peach  Yellows,  Series  III,  Xo.  3. 
'' Letter  of  September  19,  1887. 


12G  SPECIAL    liEPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

tree  in  spring  and  fall.    The  orchard  must  also  first  be  pruned  severely, 
to  cut  out  all  the  noticeably  diseased  wood. 

If  peach  yellows  can  be  cured  in  this  simple  manner  every  peach- 
grower  ought  to  know  it,  for  hundreds  of  orchards  in  New  Jersey,  Dela- 
ware, and  Maryland  are  being  ruined,  entailing  great  financial  loss. 
Even  if  thistieatment  can  be  depended  on  as  a  reasonably  certain  pre- 
ventive, it  is  one  of  the  most  important  horticultural  discoveries  of 
jnoderu  times.  The  fact  that  the  ingredients  here  supplied  in  a  concen- 
trated soluble  form  are  found  naturally  in  considerable  quantity  in  the 
ash  of  healthy  [teach  trees  is  certainly  au  argument  in  their  favor.  If 
yellows,  therefore,  is  only  synonymous  with  starvation,  the  results  of  this 
treatment  ought  to  be  speedy  and  unmistakable.  Six  yiears  have  passed 
since  the  publication  of  Dr.  Goessman's  analyses,  and  mauj'  faithful 
trials  have  been  made  by  peach  growers.    What  have  been  the  results  ? 

When  I  began  mj'  field-work,  in  July,  1887, 1  had  no  favorite  theory 
to  advance,  but  gave  very  careful  attention  to  this  one,  among  others, 
hoping,  for  the  sake  of  the  fruit-growers,  to  be  able  to  confirm  it.  This 
I  have  not  been  able  to  do. 

In  the  first  place,  there  appears  to  be  an  error  of  logic  in  deriving 
conclusions  from  premises.  In  the  diseased  tissues  Dr.  Goessman  found 
a  deficiency  of  potash,  and  with  this  fact  for  one  premise,  and  for  the 
other  the  knowledge  that  potash  is  procured  by  the  plant  only  from  the 
» arth,  he  and  Professor  Penhallow  assumed  a  lack  of  this  substance  in 
the  soil.  Even  a-sumiug  a  constant  deficiency  of  this  sort  in  diseased 
trees,  the  conelusion  which  they  reached  by  no  means  logically  follows, 
any  more  than  it  follows  that  the  leanness  of  a  consumptive  or  a  dys- 
peptic is  attributable  to  a  want  of  appetite  or  of  sufficient  food.  If  in 
diseased  tissues  there  is  a  constant  deficiency  of  potash,  such  as  the 
analyses  seem  to  indicate,  why  may  it  not  be  an  effect  of  the  disease 
ratiier  than  the  cause  ?  The  amount  of  this  substance  is  believed  to  be 
proportionate  to  the  vigor  of  growth.  In  weak  and  feeble  growths,  such 
as  are  characteristic  of  the  later  stages  of  yellows,  we  might  consequently 
expect  to  find  less  (;f  this  element.  In  my  judgment  the  amount  of  as- 
similable material  in  the  soil  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  deficien- 
cies said  to  exist  in  diseased  tissues. 

Again,  it  would  seem  that  four  analyses,  however  carefully  made,  are 
an  insufficient  basis  for  so  important  an  assumption.  On  this  grouiyV 
alone  the  fact  of  any  characteristic  disparity  of  chemical  compos.  • 
might  very  properly  be  denied,  or  held  in  question,  until  established 
many  careful  analyses.  Up  to  this  date  only  a  few  have  been  mad' 
and  these  are  not  altogether  consistent  (see  Appendix  A).  At  leasi\ 
half  a  hundred  analyses  ought  to  be  made,  under  various  conditions  of 
growth,  if  anything  like  exact  information  is  desired.  At  present  we  do 
not  even  know  that  trees  stunted  by  borers,  by  root  aphides,  or  by  starva- 
ation  would  not  yield  chemical  results  identical  with  those  given  by  trees 
suffering  from  yellows.    The  probabilities  are  that  they  would. 


YELLOWS    AND    SOIL    EXHAUSTION.  127 

Moreover,  kuowiug  from  personal  experience  how  easy  it  is  to  make 
mistakes,  I  am  inclined,  witb  all  dne  respect  to  those  who  advocate  this 
theory,  to  think  there  may  also  be  a  possible  error  of  fact  as  to  the 
alleged  cures. 

Tlie  Amherst  trees  were  set,  in  1870,  only  12  feet  apart;  were  neg- 
lected for  hve  years,  and  did  not  receive  treatment  for  yellows  until  1878. 
Only  the  trees  least  affected  were  treated.  These  became  green,  bore 
fruit,  and  were  pronounced  cured  at  the  end  of  three  years.  We  are 
not  told  who  identified  the  disease,  or  whether  the  trees  in  question 
(the  identical  ones  treated)  bore  the  premature  red-spotted  peaches 
and  the  characteristic  shoots.  Is  it  not  possible  that  these  trees  may 
not  have  had  genuine  peach  yellows,  such  as  has  destroyed  the  orchards 
in  Michigan  and  Delaware?  I  have  frequently  seen  yellow,  starved- 
looking  trees  which  were  not  suffering  from  yellows,  and  these,  too,  in 
orchards  where  the  real  disease  was  present.  It  is  easy  'to  mistake 
something  else  for  yellows  if  one  has  had  but  litthi  experience  with  the 
disease.  The  statements  that  these  trees  were  on  an  im[)overishe(l  hill ; 
tliat  they  were  set  only  12  feet  apart;  that  they  were  eight  years  old 
when  the  disease  was  discovered,  and  that  the  trees  in  the  richer  bot- 
tom remained  healthy,  all  lead  me  to  think  that  some  or  all  of  them  may 
have  been  simply  starved  trees,  in  which  case  they  would  naturally 
resi)ond  (]uick]y  to  suitable  food.  On  any  other  assumption  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  harmonize  my  own  observations  with  the  statements  of  Dr.  Goess- 
man  and  Professor  Penhallow,  unless,  indeed,  there  should  exist  a  dif- 
ference in  judgment  as  to  what  constitutes  a  cure.  My  own  criterion 
is  that  the  restored  tree  must  again  bear  healthy  fruit,  ripening  at  the 
normal  time.  Any  substance  which  accomplishes  less  than  this  is  not 
a  remedy,  but  at  best  onl}'  a  palliative. 

Professor  Penhallow's  held  work  at  Houghton  farm  in  1883  woald 
also  ai)[)ear  to  offer  insufficient  data  for  judgment  as  to  the  real  merits 
of  the  muriate  of  potash.  One  tree  only  was  cured  of  yellows.  This 
had  nev«n"  borne  fruit,  but  was  one  of  a  few  youug  trees  procured  that 
year  fi  om  Rochester,  N.  Y.  Is  there  not  a  possibility  that  this  tree  was 
suffering  from  a  cause  or  causes  other  than  that  which  produces  yellows, 
although  manifesting  symptoms  somewhat  resembling  if?  This  cure  was 
effected  in  1883.  I  am  unable  to  say  what  has  been  the  subsequent  his- 
tory of  this  tree.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  if  it  continues  healthy 
and  is  i)roductive. 

Has  this  remedy  given  any  more  detinite  and  satisfactory  results  in 
the  hands  of  practical  peach-  growlers?  After  two  years  of  observa- 
tion and  inquiry  in  Michigan,  Marylanl,  and  Delaware,  I  must  say 
I  can  not  find  that  it  has.  So  far  as  my  own  observation  goes  the 
most  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  any  phosi)hato  or  potash  treatment 
is  that  the  trees  become  greener  and  in  some  cases  produce  premature 
fruit  for  a  year  or  two  longer  than  otherwise.  v)n  the  Delaware  and 
Chesapeake  Peuinsula  it  is  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception  to  use 


128  SPECIAL    KEPOKT     ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

commercial  fertilizers,  and  some  of  the  orchards  which  I  have  examined 
have  received  very  hirge  doses  of  fertilizers  containing  potasli,  phos- 
phoric acid,  sulphuric  acid,  chlorine,  etc.;  but  it  is  almost  tlie  universal 
testimony  that  as  a  remedy  for  peach  yellows,  or  even  as  a  preventive, 
they  are  of  no  value  w^hatever.  A  few  raeu  hold  a  contrary  oi)inion, 
and  in  some  instances  I  took  special  pains  to  visit  their  orchards,  learn 
the  treatment  and  note  the  condition  of  the  trees. 

In  September,  1887,  learningby  newspaper  reports  of  some  trees  near 
Smyrna,  Del.;  which  had  been  cured  of  yellows,  1  visited  the  place  and 
examined  the  trees.  They  are  on  the  farm  of  J.  Scout,  near  the  village. 
Mr.  Scout  himself  did  not  assert  that  the  trees  had  been  cured,  but 
said  "  There  they  are.     You  can  judge  for  yourself 

I  found  a  row  of  fifteen  trees,  ten  years  old,  of  several  varieties.  They 
were  on  level  ground,  next  a  gooseberry  patch,  and  near  a  prolific  vine- 
yard. The  treatment  began  four  years  i)revious  and  was  at  first  acci- 
dental. At  that  time  the  ground  under  the  trees  on  the  side  next  the 
berry  patch  received  the  same  dressing  as  the  latter— /.c,  a  veiy  heavy 
coating  of  privy  manure.  Since  then  in  the  si)riiig  of  each  year  the 
trees  have  received  a  dressing  of  ground  bone  at  the  rate  of  GOO  pounds 
per  acre,  and  of  kaiuit  at  the  rate  of  400  i)ounds  per  acre. 

The  condition  of  these  tifteen  trees,  nuaibered  from  soutli  to  north, 
was  as  follows  : 


1.  DoubtfuL 

2.  Badly  diseased  by  yellows. 

3.  Healthy. 

4.  Badly  diseased  liy  yellows, 
t).  Diseased  by  yellows. 

6.  Badly  diseased  by  yellows. 

7.  Diseased  by  yellows. 

8.  Badly  diseased  by  yellows. 


D.  Healthy. 

10.  Badly  diseased  b^-  yellows. 
U.  Healthy. 

12.  Dead,—  by  yellows(?). 

13.  Diseased  by  yellows. 

14.  Diseased  by  yellows. 

lb.  Badly  diseased  by  yellows. 


In  other  words,  three  of  these  trees  were  healthy  ;  one  was  dead  ;  one 
was  doubtful,  and  ten  had  yellows,  six  of  them  being  full  of  the  charac- 
teristic shoots  and  badly  diseased,  while  the  other  four  showed  unmis- 
takable signs  of  it.  In  thirteen  and  fourteen  there  were  some  indica- 
tions of  recovery,  but  nothing  definite.  Mr.  Scout  thinks  that  all  had 
the  disease  four  years  ago,  but  of  this  I  do  not  feel  certain. 

H.  H.  Appleton,  of  Odessa,  Del.,  has  boned  and  potashed  his  orchards 
very  liberally  for  years,  but  trees  upon  his  place  were  badly  diseased  by 
yellows  in  1887  and  1888,  and  although  his  shrewd  neighbors  are  losing 
their  young  orchards  by  the  wholesale,  as  I  know  from  personal  inspec- 
tion, they  have  not  confidence  enough  in  his  treatment  to  ai)i)ly  it  to 
their  own  trees. 

One  of  tlie  most  striking  failures  of  this  treatment  is  on  the  ''Cassi- 
day"  or  "  reach-Blossom  "  farm,  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Sassafras 
lliver,  in  Cecil  County,  Md.  Tlie  farm  is  now  managed  by  Jolin  P.  R. 
Polk,  of  Wilmington,  Del.  He  has  been  a  firm  believer  in  the  elficacy 
of  this  treatment,  and  for  four  years,  i.  c,  since  the  disease  began  to  be- 


YELLOWS    AND    SOIL    EXHAUSTION.  129 

come  serious  ia  that  regiou,  has  given  the  youug  50-acre  orchard  very 
heavy  dressings  of  au  excellent  peach-tree  fertilizer,  prepared  for  hiiu 
by  I.  P.  Thomas  &  Son,  of  JMiiladelphia,  after  the  Penhallow  formula, 
at  a  cost  of  $33  per  ton. 

I  visited  and  examined  this  orchard  August  29,  1888.  It  contains  r.O 
acres ;  the  front  15  is  six  years  old ;  the  back  35  is  eight  years  ol  1.  The 
whole  farm  has  been  in  peacli  orchard,  but  in  this  field  ten  years  inter- 
vened between  the  removal  of  the  old  orchard  and  the  planting  of  this 
one.  The  soil  is  nearly  level  ui>land — mellow  clay  loam  with  a  yellow 
clay  subsoil.  The  trees  are  set  108  to  an  acre.  Yellows  first  appeared 
in  the  older  part  about  1881.  The  history  of  the  treatment  of  this  or- 
chard I  and  of  the  progress  of  the  disease,  by  years,  as  given  by  Joseph 
A.  Rickards,  the  tenant,  is  as  follows : 

188 1.  Kaiiiit  was  sowed  broadcast  iu  the  spring  on  the  entire  50  acres  at  the  rate  of 
300  to  400  pounds  per  acre  [about  50  pounds  of  potash  per  acre]. 

1885.  This  year  there  were  many  premature  trees,  nearly  one-third  of  the  back  35 
acres,  i.  e.,the  older  trees.  That  fall  from  5  to  25  pounds  of  I.  P.  Thomas's  Peach 
Tree  Fertilizer  was  put  around  each  diseased  tree  [about  one-half  pound  to  two  pounds 
of  potash  and  the  same  amount  of  phosphoric  acid  per  tree].  In  all,  4  or  5  tons  were 
thus  used. 

1880.  There  were  more  premature  trees  this  year.  The  orchard  got  worse  rather 
than  better,  and  Mr.  Rickards  wished  to  dig  out  all  diseased  trees,  but  Mr.  Polk  ob- 
jected aud  desired  to  continue  the  treatment.  That  fall  from  300  to  400  pounds  per 
acre  of  oi'dinary  phospbatc,  part  of  it  made  by  Mr.  Thomas,  was  sowed  broadcast  ou 
the  entire  50  acres  [0  to  8  pounds  of  potash  aud  20  to  30  pounds  of  phosphoric  acid 
per  acre]. 

1887.  The  younger,  front  part  of  the  orchard  showed  many  diseased  trees.  Notlr 
iug  was  put  o-n  the  back  35  acres,  but  on  the  15  acres  of  younger  trees  the  Thomas 
mixture  was  applied  at  tlie  rate  of  300  to  400  pounds  per  acre.  This  was  put  on  iu 
March  or  April  aud  j)lowed  under  later.     The  orchard  showed  no  improvement. 

1888.  No  treatment,  save  the  ordinary  careful  culrivation  which  has  been  given 
each  year. 

I  drove  the  entire  length  of  the  orchard  and.  along  one  end,  and 
walked  through  the  middle.  It  is  very  badly  diseased  in  all  parts,  and 
many  of  the  trees  are  entirely  worthless.  The  boss  of  the  picking  gang, 
who  has  been  on  the  place  live  years,  and  was  then  at  work  in  the  or- 
chard, told  me  that  20  acres  of  the  33  was  "good  for  nothing,"  and  would 
becut  down  as  soon  as  time  could  be  found  to  do  it,  Mr.  Polk  haviug  given 
orders  to  that  eflecf;  in  fact  5  acres  had  already  been  cut  down  (see 
Photo.  XXIY  made  in  November).  He  estimated  that  about  two  thirds 
of  the  eight-year-old  trees  were  diseased,  and  I  saw  nothing  which  led 
me  to  doubt  his  statement.  Of  the  six-year  old  trees,  he  thought  u'oout 
one-fourth  were  premature.  FollowiDg  Mr.  Polk's  direction  the  tenant 
began  to  cut  these  down,  but  found  so  many  of  them,  that  he  preferred 
not  to  execute  the  order  until  he  should  again  see  the  manager  and  in- 
form him  morefullyof  the  exact  condition  of  the  trees.  The  diseased  trees 
were  very  yellow  and  sickly  looking,  some  were  barren,  and  others  bore 
premature  fruit  and  the  characteristic  shoots.  The  healthy  trees,  espe- 
11215— Xo.  9—  !) 


130  SPECIAL    KEPOliT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

cially  iu  the  younger  part  of  the  orchard,  bore  considerable  fruit;  tbey 
were  large,  and  the  foliage  was  green  and  vigorous.  Evidently  tbey 
bare  bad  good  care  and  plenty  of  suitable  food. 

So  far  as  I  could  judge,  assuming  for  a  basis  tbe  recent  progress  of 
the  disease  in  all  tbat  part  of  Maryland,  tbe  fertilizers  bave  bad  no  ef- 
fect whatever  iu  retarding  its  spread.  It  bas  gone  on  increasing  from 
year  to  year  until  now  tbe  orchard  is  very  badly  diseased.  It  is  cer- 
tainly as  bad  as  any  untreated  orchard  within  a  radius  of  10  miles,  and 
mucb  worse  than  several  orchards  on  tbe  south  side  of  tbe  Sassafras 
Eiver,  on  similar  soil,  and  on  land  which  bas  been  "peached "once  and 
bas  received  no  special  treatment.  In  my  judgment  it  would  bave  been 
better  to  have  removed  tbe  diseased  trees,  from  year  to  year,  as  fast  as 
tbey  appeared.  If  I  bave  not  been  misinformed,  Mr.  Polk  is  now  also 
of  this  opinion. 

Orchard  No.  1  of  this  report  received  200  pounds  of  ground  bone  and 
200  pounds  of  muriate  of  potash  per  acre  when  three  years  old. 

Orchard  No.  2  has  also  received  a  good  deal  in  the  way  of  phosphates, 
potash  salts,  and  barn-yard  manure  for  a  series  of  years. 

Orchard  No.  14  received  kainit  broadcast  iu  tbe  spring  of  1885,  at  the 
rate  of  400  pounds  per  acre.  Phosphates  and  barn-yard  manure  were 
used  on  the  held  for  other  crops  previous  to  setting  the  trees,  but  not 
since.  Tbe  level  30-acre  field  lying  south  of  this  orchard  produced  be- 
tween 29  and  30  bushels  of  wheat  per  acre  in  1888.  I  saw  it  fallowed 
in  1887,  and  the  soil  appeared  to  be  identical  with  that  of  tbe  orchard. 

Orchard  No.  10  bas  been  remarkably  productive,  but  bas  received 
very  little  in  the  way  of  fertilizers.  It  is  thirty-three  years  old,  and 
never  suffered  much  from  yellows  until  recently.  This  orchard  may  be 
compared  ^vitb  No.  2,  which  is  on  mucb  tbe  same  kind  of  soil;  or  with 
No.  18,  which  was  not  old  enough  to  bear  until  1888,  and  then  produced 
only  a  sprinkling  of  peaches,  mostly  premature;  or  with  No.  3,  which 
made  a  vigorous  growth,  and  bore  only  one  or  two  light  crops  before 
succumbing. 

Again,  on  tbe  supposition  that  yellows  is  due  to  exhaustion  of  soil, 
ought  it  not  to  appear  in  old  rather  than  young  trees,  in  trees  which 
have  produced  excessive  crops  of  fruit  for  many  years  in  succession 
rather  than  in  those  which  have  borne  only  one  or  two  light  crops  or 
even  none  at  all  1  The  reverse  of  this  is  true.  I  have  found  yellows 
more  rapidly  destructive  in  young  than  in  old  orchards.  I  know  a 
number  of  instances  where  very  productive  old  orchards  have  been  en- 
tirely spared  for  the  first  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  while  young  orchards 
on  tbe  same  farm,  or  iu  the  immediate  vicinity,  have  become  very  badly 
diseased  during  the  first  six  years  of  their  orchard  life.  In  some  cases 
where  soil,  location,  method  of  cultivation,  etc.,  appeared  to  be  tbe 
same,  I  have  found  that  old  and  young  trees  were  attacked  at  about  the 
same  time,  both  being  injured  alike,  or  the  young  suftering  worse;  in 
other  cases  the  young  orchards  bave  been  attacked  a  year  or  two  sooner 


YELLOWS    AND    SOIL    EXHAUSTION.  131 

than  the  old  oues.  The  reverse  of  this,  i.  e.,  old  orcbards  attacked  first, 
is  sometimes  true,  but  ou  tbis  tbeory  it  ougbt  to  be  true  alwiiys.  or  at 
least  very  commonly.  Tbis  is  certainly  far  from  being  the  case.  Of  the 
eighteen  orchards  specially  mentioned  in  this  report  only  four  are  over 
nine  years  old,  and  a  number  of  them  have  been  set  only  three,  four, 
and  five  years. 

A  general  consideration  of  the  way  in  which  the  disease  spreads 
appears  also  to  be  opposed  to  the  view  that  it  results  from  soil-exhaus- 
tion. Within  five  or  six  years  it  has  appeared  in  nearly  all  the  orchards 
on  the  upper  part  of  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  peninsula,  and  for 
the  last  two  or  three  years  it  has  affected  tree  after  tree  very  rapidly.  In 
that  region  it  is  now  ou  all  kinds  of  soil,  clay,  clay -loam,  sandy-loam,  and 
light  sand;  ou  the  richest  farms  and  on  tbe  poorest;  on  new  and  old 
lauds;  on  impoverished  hill  tops  or  hillsides,  and  in  rich  bottoms;  iu 
young  and  old  trees;  in  budded  fruit  and  in  seedlings  ;  iu  transplanted 
trees  and  in  those  which  have  never  been  moved  ;  in  trees  crowded,  set 
20  feet  apait,  and  even  40  feet  apart ;  on  moist  fields  and  dry  ones;  on 
liighlyfertilized  soils  and  on  those  which  have  received  a  minimum  of 
fertilizers  or  none  whatever.  These  statements,  every  one  of  which 
1  have  verified  repeatedly  in  Maryland  and  Delaware,  have  also  all 
proved  true  in  the  experience  of  Michigau  peach  growers,  as  I  know 
from  correspondence  and  conversation  with  many  of  them.  Is  it  prob- 
able, or  even  within  the  bounds  of  possibility,  that  suddenly  all  the 
orchard  lands  in  whole  counties  should  become  exhausted  and  incapa- 
ble of  growing  the  peach;  capable  still,  however,  of  growing  excellent 
corn  aud  wheat,  aud  fiue  vineyards  and  pear  and  apple  orchards?  The 
chemical  analyses  of  the  peach  reveal  no  peculiarity  of  composition 
that  would  warrant  any  such  belief. 

Moreover,  in  some  of  the  lower  counties  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Dela- 
ware peninsula,  which  have  been  settled  as  long  and  have  grown 
peaches  nearly  or  quite  as  long,  yellows  has  not  appeared,  at  least  not 
so  as  to  be  noticed,  although  the  soil  is  lighter  and  less  fertile. 

Sussex  County,  Del.,  in  particular,  contains  large  tracts  of  very  sandy 
laud,  and  is  noticeably  less  fertile  than  Kent  County.  Indeed,  from  Sea- 
ford  to  Delmar,  along  the  line  of  the  railroad,  it  is  almost  a  barren  waste 
of  sandy,  scrub -pine  country.  Corn  and  wheat  will  not  grow.  Melons 
and  small  fruits  are  the  principal  products,  blackberries  being  the  crop 
which  thrives  best.  Peach  trees  planted  on  this  land  are  yellowish, 
small,  and  starved,  and  the  orchards  seldom  live  more  than  ten  or  twelve 
years  ;  yet,  iu  the  whole  region  I  did  not  see  or  hear  of  a  case  of  yel- 
lows. The  trees  sometimes  starve,  but  do  not  die  of  yellows.  In  many 
orchards  it  is  also  the  practice,  and  has  been  for  years,  to  double-crop 
the  land  by  planting  four  or  five  rows  of  strawberries  or  of  blackberry 
bushes  between  the  orchard  trees.  These  strong-feeding  plants  take 
from  the  soil  much  jiotash,  phosphoric  acid,  and  other  mineral  matters, 
and  the  peach  trees  evidently  feel  the  loss;  but  not  even  iu  any  of  these 


132  SPECIAL    REPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

orcbards  could  I  find  yellows,  altliougU  I  tramped  patiently  over  many 
acres  aud  examined  hundreds  of  trees. 

In  driving  from  Seaford  to  Laurel  I  passed  tbrougli  au  especially 
dreary  country.  I  have  seen  nothing  like  it  except  in  the  pine  barrens 
of  Michigan.  The  timber  was  chiefly  second  growth  scrub-pine  {Finus 
inops,  Ait.)  or  old-field  pine  (P.  Tceda,  L.).  Cassia  chamcccrista,  L.,  Comp- 
tonia  anpUnifolia,  Ait.,  and  similar  plants  of  barren  land  were  common. 
The  roads  were  of  dee[>,  loose,  yellow  sand.  The  wheels  settled  in  over 
the  felloe,  and  it  was  not  possible  to  drive  faster  than  a  walk.  All  along 
the  road — in  soil,  crops,  orchards,  houses,  fences,  and  inhabitants- 
there  was  every  indication  of  poverty,  and  sometimes  of  a  hand-to- 
mouth  fight  with  starvation  ;  yet  no  indication  of  yellows.  Now,  in  the 
name  of  all  ihe  chemists,  if  yellows  and  starvation  are  synonymous,  why 
does  the  disease  [U'evail  on  the  rich  loams  of  Kent  and  New  Castle  and 
not  in  Sussex  ? 

The  better  soil  north  of  Seaford  is  a  flat,  shallow,  gray  sand,  capable 
of  growing  10  or  15  busliels  of  w  heat  per  acre,  but  not  nearly  as  fertile 
as  the  clays  and  clay  loams  of  Kent  County.  There  I  saw  no  yellows, 
and  could  not  learn  that  it  had  ever  been  in  that  vicinity,  the  only  sus- 
picious trees  being  recent  imports. 

In  Maryland  a  similar  parallel  might  be  drawn  between  the  sandy 
pine  lands  of  Caroline  County  and  the  loams  and  clays  of  Kent  ('ounty. 
Kent  is  much  the  richer  county,  but,  so  far,  Caroline  has  almost  entirely 
escai)ed  the  yellows,  while  Kent  has  suffered  very  severely.  The  more 
southern  counties  of  Maryland,  such  as  Dorchester,  Somerset,  and  Wi- 
comico, also  contain  much  poor,  sandy  land,  but  yellows  has  not  been 
reported  from  that  part  of  the  State. 

Again,  my  observation  has  been  that  thrifty  trees  on  fertile  soil  are 
quite  as  likely  to  be  attacked  as  any.  In  orchards  Nos.  2^  10,  14,  15, 
aud  17  of  this  report  the  largest,  most  rapidly  growing  trees,  on  the 
richest  parts  of  the  field,  i.  e.,  those  receiving  the  drainage,  were  the 
first  to  be  attacked.  In  Nos.  3,  G,  10,  and  14  aJl  the  trees  had  made  a 
remarkably  fine  growth.  Orchards  Xos.  1,  5,  G,  7,  8,  10,  aud  14  are  on 
good  clay-loam  soil,  capable  ot  growing  from  20  to  30  bushels  of  wheat 
per  acre  and  40  to  50  bushels  of  shelled  corn.  Many  other  affected  or- 
chards which  I  have  examined  are  on  excellent  soil,  judging  from  its  ap- 
pearance, from  the  growth  made  by  the  trees  previous  to  becoming  dis 
eased,  aud  from  the  character  of  the  wheat,  corn,  aud  other  farm  crops 
growing  in  the  immediate  vicinity.  The  same  fact  has  been  observed  by 
others  repeatedly  in  Delaware,  Maryland,  aud  Michigan.  A.  S.  Dyck- 
mau,  one  of  the  largest  growers  at  South  Haven,  Mich.,  told  me  that 
he  had  a  saudy  bluff  the  soil  of  which  had  beeu  blown  away  to  tlie 
depth  of  1  to  2  feet  by  the  winds  of  Lake  Michigan,  so  that  nothing  but 
the  sandy  subsoil  remaiued.  Peach  trees  were  set  in  this  sand,  and 
made  almost  no  growth  for  a  number  of  years,  but  grew  and  bore 
peaches  when  manured.     In  a  rich  bottom  in  the  same  orchard  trees 


YELLOWS    AND    SOIL    EXHAUSTION.  133 

suffered  from  yellows,  but  none  were  attacked  on  the  blnfif,  altbough 
the  soil  was  too  poor  to  grow  peach  trees,  or  even  grass  or  weeds,  nn- 
til  it  was  heavily  manured 

There  is  a  general  impression  that  peach  yellows  is  more  destructive 
in  oichards  planted  on  huid  previously  occupied  by  peach  trees.  This 
has  been  ascribed  to  impoverishment  of  soil.  The  belief,  no  doubt,  arose 
from  the  common  observation  that  in  districts  long  infected  and  where, 
so  to  speak,  the  disease  has  become  endemic,  second  plantings  decay 
speedily.  In  such  places  I  am  inclined  to  think  this  speedy  decay  is  in 
some  way  connected  with  locality,  but  do  not  believe  it  to  be  the  direct 
result  of  impoverished  soil.  At  Odessa,  Del.,  I  bad  good  opportunity 
to  observe  this.  That  region  was  formerly  very  thickly  planted  with 
large  peach  orchards,  which  disapi)eared  in  the  seventies,  largely  on 
a(;count  of  the  prevalence  of  yellows.  The  more  enterprising  farmers 
set  new  orchards,  and  in  1888  I  had  an  opportunity  to  examine  them. 
They  are  from  one  to  eight  years  old,  and  almost  without  exception 
tho-e  which  have  been  planted  over  three  years  are  badly  diseased  ;  but 
the  orchards  set  on  the  site  of  former  orchards  do  not  seem  to  be  worse 
alfected  than  those  set  on  ground  never  before  in  peaches.  One  of  the 
worst  orchards  seen  is  near  the  Utilaware  River,  on  the  farm  of  E.  C 
Fennimore.  The  trees  are  six  and  eight  years  old,  set  on  sandy  land, 
clay  subsoil,  pre\  iously  occupied  for  sixteen  years  by  the  very  productive 
orchard  already  mentionetl.  The  old  orchard  suifered  badly  from  yellows 
toward  the  end,  and  was  entirely  removed  in  1874 — seven  years  before 
the  tield  was  again  planted  to  trees.  At  the  time  of  my  visit  Mr.  Fenni- 
more was  pulling  out  orchard  trees  with  a  span  of  mules,  and  I  saw 
lar^ie  8tri[»s  from  which  the  trees  had  been  removed  in  188G  and  I8S7. 
Many  of  rhe  trees  were  badly  diseased,  and  a  natural  inference  was 
that  the  previous  orchard  had  exhausted  the  soil.  However,  the  or- 
chard is  not  more  badly  diseased  by  yellows  than  Nos.  1,  3,  7,  8, 11,  and 
17  of  this  report,  which  are  on  land  never  before  in  peaches;  nor  is  it 
worse  than  others  which  I  have  seen  in  Maryland  and  Delaware  on 
"  unpeached"  land. 

Somewhat  farther  south  in  Delaware,  where  the  disease  is  now  ob- 
taining a  strong  foothold,  it  does  not  attack  orchards  on  "  peached"  land 
any  sooner  or  any  more  destructively  than  those  on  land  never  before 
in  i)eaches.  I  have  observed  the  same  fact  in  Maryland  in  a  number  of 
instances.     Some  cases  may  be  cited  : 

About  four-fifths  of  orchard  No.  9  of  this  report  is  on  laud  i)ro- 
viously  occui;ied  by  a  peach  orchard,  but  this  portion  has  not  snffered 
worse  than  the  rest  of  the  orchard  (see  Table  VII).  A  portion  of  or- 
chard No.  10  was  formerly  in  peaches,  the  tiees  being  removed  Jiine 
years  before  the  present  orchard  was  set.  Ne\  ertheless,  this  part  of  the 
orchard  was  not  attacked  any  sooner,  and  has  not  suffered  more  severely 
than  other  parts  (see  Map  III).     Two  orchards  near  Still  Pond,  Md., 


134  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

on  "peached"  land  have  suffered  much  less  than  Xos.  1  and  2  of  this 
rei)ort,  although  they  are  not  far  from  the  latter. 

Dif^eascd  irees  also  occur  in  fence-rows  and  by  roadsides  at  a  distance 
from  the  orchards,  near  ash-heaps  and  piles  of  stable  refuse,  the  drain- 
age of  which  they  have  received,  and  in  gardens,  lawns,  and  city  lots. 
In  short,  in  the  badly-infected  areas  I  have  found  the  disease  wherever 
1  liave  ionnd  peach  trees.  In  the  uninfected  areas  I  have  found  the 
disease  in  none  of  these  situations.  Between  badly  infected  vlistricts 
and  uninfected  ones  there  is  also  a  middle  ground  in  which  may  be 
found  some  affected  trees  or  orchards. 

These  facts  areall  opposed  to  the  Goessmau  Penhallow^  theory.  There 
is,  however,  a  still  more  serious  objection. 

If  yellows  is  due  to  soil  exhaustion,  the  most  convincing  proof  should 
be  found  in  localities  where  the  action  of  other  presumptive  causes,  e.g., 
contagium,  freezing,  etc.,  have  been  reduced  naturally  or  artificially  to 
a  minimum.  Manifestly  it  will  not  do  to  accept  afiQrmative  evidence  on 
this  point  from  sections  of  the  country  where  several  supposed  causes 
are  acting  unrestrainedly  at  the  same  time,  and  any  one  of  which  may 
be  the  true  cause.  For  this  reason  the  whole  Alan  tic  coast  may  be 
ruled  out,  and  also  a  large  part  of  the  Northwest.  In  all  this  region 
either  the  winters  are  severe,  or  the  disease  is  not  present,  or  it  is  al- 
lowed to  spread  without  any  general,  systematic  effort  to  check  it.  The 
only  localities  really  suitable  for  such  an  inquiry  are  (1)  those  parts  of 
the  South  where  the  climate  is  mild  and  the  disease  has  never  appeared, 
and  (2)  the  peach  belt  of  western  Michigan,  close  to  the  lake  shore,  in 
the  vicinity  of  South  Haven,  Van  Buren  County,  and  in  the  townships 
of  Casco,  Ganges,  and  Saugatuck,  Allegan  County,  where  the  yellows 
law  is  enforced  and  where  the  lake  tempers  the  severity  of  the  winters. 

The  soil  in  many  parts  of  the  South  was  "exhausted  "  years  ago,  and 
yet  peach  trees  continue  to  be  coniparatively  free  from  yellows,  and 
often  live  twenty  or  thirty  years.  However,  as  I  am  more  intimately 
acquainted  with  conditions  in  Michigan,  I  will  confine  the  discussion  to 
that  region. 

The  four  Michigan  townships  named  border  Lake  Michig;iii  I'ov  a 
distance  of  24  miles,  and  comprise  the  most  important  peach  disirict 
in  the  State,  the  only  one  at  all  comparable  with  the  peach  regions  of 
New  Jersey,  Maryland,  or  Delaware.  The  country  has  not  been  well 
settled  more  than  thirty  or  forty  years  and  there  is  still  considerable 
virgin  forest  of  pine,  hemlock,  beech,  and  maple.  The  character  of  the 
soil  varies  from  a  light  sand  to  heavy  clay  loam.  At  South  Haven,  and 
generally  near  the  lake,  it  is  sandy.  Some  miles  inland,  at  least  in 
Allegan  County,  the  soil  is  heavier  and  more  fertile. 

In  accordance  with  State  law,  supported  in  this  region  by  a  very  strong 
public  sentiment  based  on  a  nearly  universal  belief  in  the  communicable 
nature  of  yellows,  diseased  peach  trees  are  cut  down  or  dug  out  and 
burned  as  soon  as  discovered.    In  this  way,  on  the  theory  of  spread  by 


YELLOWS    AND    SOIL    EXHAUSTION.  135 

contaginiu  the  iufectivc  umtcriai,  whatever  it  may  be,  must  presumably 
be  kept  at  a  minimum.  If  it  is  developed  iu  the  tree  it  cau  never  be 
very  abundant,  for  there  are  never  very  many  diseased  trees  in  exist- 
ence at  any  one  time.  The  proximity  of  Lake  Michigan  also  tends  to 
prevent  injuries  by  freezing. 

neie,  then,  the  influence  of  two  supposed  causes  is  reduced  to  a  mini- 
mum, and  the  effect  of  soil  exhaustion  will,  if  anywhere,  be  freed  from 
complications,  and  in  condition  to  be  estimated  more  nearly  at  its  true 
value. 

The  fact  that  cases  of  yellows  still  appear  in  this  region,  year  aft3r 
year,  in  spite  of  the  modifying  influence  of  the  great  lake,  and  in  spite 
of  the  comparatively  strict  enforcement  of  the  law,  would,  at  first,  seem 
to  favor  the  theory  of  soil  exhaustion,  but  really  does  not.  Some  very 
stubborn  facts  stand  in  the  way  of  the  accei)tance  of  this  theory.  These 
are : 

(1)  Yellows  is  much  less  prevalent  where  the  law  has  been  strictly 
enforced.  This  phase  of  the  question  will  be  considered  later  at  some 
length  under  "Influence  of  legislation,"  and  need  only  be  mentioned 
here.     Of  the  fact  itself  I  tliink  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

(2)  Yellows  has  appeared  in  this  region  on  productive  virgin  soil,  /.  t-., 
on  land  cleared  of  the  original  forest  within  less  than  a  decade,  and 
never  exhausted  by  cropping.  This  statement  is  so  important  that  I 
have  been  at  great  pains  to  verify  it,  by  extensive  correspondence,  and 
later  by  a  visit  to  the  region.  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt^whatever 
about  it. 

(3)  Healthy  trees  can  be  grown  without  lapse  of  time  and  without 
fertilizers  iu  the  places  previously  occupied  by  diseased  ones.  In  this 
region  it  is  the  custom,  and  has  been  for  ten  years  or  more,  to  set 
peach  trees  in  the  place  of  those  dug  out  on  account  of  yellows,  and 
tiiese  resets  are  not  more  liable  to  the  di.sease  than  other  trees  in  the 
orchard.  In  fact,  from  many  reliable  peach-growers  iu  southwestern 
Michigan  I  have  received  straightforward  independent  testimony  show- 
ing that  trees  set  in  place  of  those  unmistakably  diseased  by  yellows 
have  come  to  maturity  and  borne  healthy  fruit,  and  are  now  healthy. 
Such  a  state  of  affairs  could  not  possibly  exist,  not  generally,  if  soil  ex- 
haustion were  the  cause  of  yellows  or  one  of  the  necessary  factors  iu 
its  production. 

Granted  this  fact  alone  and  it  would  seem  that  the  theory  of  poverty 
of  soil  must  necessarily  fall  to  the  ground,  for  if  one  tree  has  exhausted 
the  soil  so  as  to  become  diseaseil  how  cau  another  tree  be  set  imme- 
diately in  the  same  i)lace  and  come  to  a  healthy  maturity  ?  So  imi)or- 
taut  is  this  matter  that  I  desire  to  introduce  abstracts  from  some  of  the 
more  important  statements  received. 

(Ju  March  24,  18S8,  and  again  April  9  and  IG,  I  sent  the  following 
questiou,  or  modified  forms  of  it,  to  peacli-growers  in  southwestern 
Michigan : 


136  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

QUESTION. 

In  your  cxperieuce  have  you  ever  succeeded  iu  growing  beallliy 
peaches  from  trees  set  in  the  phice  of  those  dug  out  on  account  ot 
unmistalxoble  yellows  ;  i.  c,  set  iu  place  of  trees  w  hich  bore  the  prema- 
ture red-spotted  fruit,  or  the  starved  wiry  branches,  or  both  ?  If  you 
have  done  so,  when  was  it  and  under  what  circumstances,  and  how  long 
did  the  trees  remain  healthy  ? 

To  these  questions  I  received  the  followiug  replies  : 

ANSWERS. 

(1.)  South  Haven,  Mich.,  March  26,  1888. 

I  have  little  persoual  expotencc  bearing  upon  the  question  of  soil-starvation  as 
a  cause  of  yellows,  and  I  have  never  planted  a  tree  in  place  of  one  diseased;  but 
this  has  bien  done  to  a  considerable  extent  iu  orchards  here,  and  I  have  not  heard 
of  disease  traceable  to  this  cause. — T.  T.  Lyox. 

(2.)  South  Haven,  Mich.,  April  2,  1888. 

I  have  taken  up  peach  trees  tha.,  had  the  yellows,  au-d  reset  in  the  same  places, 
and  have  picked  peaches  from  eaid  trees  two  years  and  they  are  perfectly  healthy 
yet.— D.  C.  Leisening. 
(3.)  Fennville,  Mich.,  April  11,  188d 

1  have  done  so  suecess/iiUy.  I  planted  an  orchard  on  new  ground,  and  out  of  that 
orchard  one  year  I  cut  twenty  trees,  adjoining,  all  of  which  had  uiimifitakable 
yellows — which  showed  .spotted  fruit  and  wiry  fungus  growth.  The  trees  planted  in 
the  places  of  those  taken  out  have  borne  nothing  bnt  the  best  of  fruit,  showing  no 
signs  of  yellows,  and  are  still  bearing. — J.  P.  Wade. 

In  response  to  a  letter  asking  for  more  explicit  information  on  certain 
points  Mr.  Wade  replied  again,  under  date  of  April  IG,  as  follows : 

The  twenty  trees  were  dug  out  in  1882,  and  young  trees  planted  in  same  places  in 
1883. 

The  forest  timber  was  beech  and  maple.  I  had  one  crop  only  after  clear! ug  before 
the  trees  were  planted. 

The  trees  were  five  years  old  when  the  yellows  was  first  discovered,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  one  tree  the  year  previous. 
(4.)  South  Haven,  Mich.,  April  12,  1888. 

Perhaps  to  answer  your  question  simply  by  saying  "Yes,"  would  not  be  as  satis- 
factory as  to  give  you  some  brief  examples. 

I  came  into  this  country  iu  1852,  when  it  was  one  vast  wilderness.  After  the  tirst 
two  years,  having  some  iniprovemeut,  and  knowing  that  our  neighbors  south,  at 
Saint  Joseph,  were  raising  peaches,  we  thought  we  would  try  it,  and  up  to  this 
date  have  raised  peaches;  have  set  five  different  orchards  at  various  times  on  my 
farm,  and  in  the  tirst  three  never  saw  any  yellow?.  Irom  1875  have  had  a  few  cases, 
of  the  yellows,  but  with  ax  and  spade  soon  cured  them.  Then  the  question  arose, 
"Can  we  set  trees  in  the  place  where  those  with  the  yellows  have  been  taken  out?" 
The  question  was  discussed  very  thoroughly  iu  our  pomological  meetings.  By  some 
it  was  thought  to  be  dangerous,  but  the  experiment  was  made  and  found  successful; 
and  for  the  last  seven  or  eight  years  we  have  taken  out  the  aliected  trees  and  the 
spring  following  have  set  iu  the  same  place,  and  have  raised  as  fine  peaches  as  we 
ever  raised,  free  from  any  blight. — S.  G.  Shkffer. 

(5.)  Fennville,  Mich.,  April  11,  1888. 

We  have  no  trouble  in  making  trees  grow  m  the  place  where  we  have  taken  out 
trees  that  had  the  yellows.     I  have  an  Early  Crawford  tree  that  I  set  in  the  place  of 


YELLOWS    AND    SoIL    EXIIAUoTION.  137 

one  that  had  the  yellows  seven  years  ago,  aud  it  has  borne  fruit  for  the  last  four 
years,  and  shows  no  signs  of  the  disease  yet.  Last  season  I  picked  three  baskets 
from  it  of  nice  marketable  fruit,  and  it  bids  fair  to  have  on  a  good  crop  the  x^resent 
year. 

As  far  as  my  experience  goes  a  new  tree  will  grow  just  as  well  where  you  take  out 
a  tree  that  has  the  yellows  as  it  would  if  the  tree  had  been  in  the  best  of  health. 
Yon  can't  set  a  tree  in  an  orchard  of  old  trees  and  have  it  do  as  well  as  it  would  if 
the  trees  were  all  young,  as  the  old  trees  shade  the  ground  with  their  wide-spreading 
tops,  keeping  oft'  the  rain  aud  dew,  and  with  their  long  roots  sap  the  ground  of  the 
nourishment  that  tha  young  tree  needs  to  make  it  grow.  I  think  the  young  ti'ee 
starves  to  death. 

Two  years  ago  I  put  in  new  trees  in  place  of  those  taken  out  on  account  of  the  yel- 
lows. I  gave  the  ground  a  liberal  dressing  of  leached  ashes,  and  you  never  saw  tiner 
looking  trees  than  these  are  at  the  present  time — full  of  fruit-buds  and  capable  of 
holding  from  one  to  two  baskets  of  peaches. — W.  H.  McCormick. 

(().)  South  Haven,  Mich.,  April  — ,  1888. 

The  first  case  of  yellows  in  our  orchard  was  in  1872,  but  I  think  it  was  discovered 
in  Rossiter  Hoppiu's  orchard,  and  perhaps  in  one  or  two  other  places,  a  year  or  two 
earlier.     My  attention  was  first  ijarticularly  directed  to  it  in  1872. 

I  have  practiced  setting  trees  in  the  places  where  they  have  been  cut  out  on  account 
of  yellows,  some  of  them  badly  aiiected.  Have  trees  in  such  situations  now  several 
years'  bearing.  Several  of  our  neighbors  likewise.  The  main  thing  is  to  watch  vigi- 
lantly, cut  out  promptly,  aud  without  mercy.  Stamp  out  the  disease  and  guard  against 
infection. 

Some  of  our  best  citllivators  have  large  bearing  trees  in  place  of  orchards  destroyed 
by  yellows.  But  they  are  thorough  men.  Our  careless  men  have  gone  out  of  the  busi- 
ness.— A.  S.  Dyckmax. 

(7.)  Gaxges,  Mich.,  April  12,  1888. 

Last  season  was  the  first  time  the  yellows  ever  appeared  on  my  place.  I  bad  a  few 
cases  in  my  old  orchard.  I  am  satisfied,  however,  that  as  healthy  trees  may  be  grown 
where  diseased  trees  are  taken  out  as  could  be  grown  on  the  same  ground  in  places 
where  healthy  trees  of  the  same  age  had  been  grown,  provided  there  is  no  part  of  the 
diseased  tree  left  growing. 

No  one  here,  so  far  as  I  know,  hesitates  about  planting  new  trees  in  the  places  from 
which  diseased  trees  have  been  taken,  unless  it  might  be  for  tbe  reason  that  the 
ground  had  become  exhausted. 

Hon.  D.  W.  Wiley,  of  Douglas,  Mich.,  i^lanted  five  trees  in  the  places  from  which 
as  many  diseased  trees  were  taken,  twelve  or  fifteen  years  ago,  aud  these  five  trees 
are  still  living,  aud  beariug  as  well  as  if  no  diseased  trees  had  ever  occupied  the 
ground. 

Cupt.  Robert  Reid,  of  Douglas,  Mich.,  Rev.  A.  C.  Merritt,  of  South  Haven,  and 
himdreds  of  others  have  -thousands  of  trees  growing  and  bearing  well  on  laud  that 
was  once  occupied  by  trees  that  had  the  yellows. — A.  Hamilton'. 

(8.)  Gaxges,  Mich.,  April  14,  1888. 

I  have  succeeded  iu  growing  healthy  peaches  on  trees  set  in  place  of  trees  removed 
which  showed  the  first  stages  of  the  yellows,  namely,  the  premature  ripening  and 
spotted  appearance  of  the  fruit. 

My  first  experience  with  yellows  was  eight  years  ago.  I  had  one  tree  which  iin- 
mistdkablij  had  yellows.  I  cut  it  down  as  soon  as  discovered,  which  was  in  August, 
and  late  iu  the  fiiU  pulled  out  the  srurap,  aud  removed  both  stump  and  branches,  and 
tlie  following  spring  set  another  tree  iu  the  same  place,  which  commenced  bearing 
the  third  year,  and  has  borne  a  crop  every  year  since,  aud  still  remains  healthy.  I 
have  had  from  one  to  a  dozen  trees  diseased  with  yellows  every  year  since,  and  have 


138  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

continued  the  practice  as  stated  above,  mauy  of  the  trees  bearing  now.     Have  never 
yet  bad  a  tree  show  yellows  where  set  in  the  place  of  one  removed. 

I  always  cut  down  as  soon  as  the  first  syniptoins  appear  ;  seldom  have  one  showing 
the  wiry  growth.  Have  never  used  any  preventatives;  always  give  thorough  culti- 
vation through  the  fore  part  of   the  season  until  about  the  Ist  of  August. — A.  W. 

FiSHEK. 

(9.)  South  Haven,  Mich.,  April  17,  1888. 

In  answer  to  your  first  question  I  can  say,  yes,  most  emphatically,  with  this  quali- 
fication, not  "  or  starved  wiry  branches."  The  trees  that  I  have  cut  out  with  yel- 
lows have  nearly  always  been  thrifty  and  vlyoroas,  showing  the  disease  only  in  the 
fruit  aud  sometimes  only  in  two  or  three  peaches,  while  all  the  rest  would  be  healthy, 
and  often  only  one  or  two  limbs  would  be  visibly  aifected.  Thorough  cultivation 
has  been  my  practice,  and  also  to  take  out  a  tree  as  soon  as  it  shows  the  disease.  I 
have  bought  and  set  a  few  trees  that  never  showed  anything  hut  the  "starved  wiry," 
fungus  growth,  but  took  them  out  and  burned  them  as  soon  as  discovered.  Had  I 
carried  over  yellows  trees  to  bear  the  second  season,  doubtless  I  could  say  yes  to  the 
last  clause  of  your  first  question. 

Question  2.  [When  was  it  ?]  I  first  discovered  unmistakable  yellows  in  the  fruit  of 
one  limb  of  one  tree  in  my  peach  orcharding  some  fifteen  years  ago.  I  dug  the  tree 
out  aud  burned  it  before  the  crop  matured.  Do  not  remember  as  I  reset  the  follow- 
ing spring  in  this  particular  case,  but  did  very  soon  thereafter.  Have  had  yellows 
ever  since,  reaching  as  high  as  seventy-five  bearing  trees  in  a  season,  and  it  has  beeu 
my  practice  to  reset  the  following  spring,  all  these  years. 

Question  3.  [Under  what  circumstances  ?]  I  had  read  of  the  disease.  The  fruit  was 
getting  color  weeks  ahead  of  the  rest  of  the  tree,  or  others.  I  believed  it  to  be  the 
yellows,  invited  my  friends  to  see  it,  the  first  of  whom  unhesitatingly  denied  its  being 
the  yellows,  but  couldoniy  say  it  was  getting  prematurely  ripe  for  some  reason.  He  was 
as  inexperienced  as  myself,  aud  that  I  was  right  my  subsequent  experience  proved. 
A  few  trees  followed  the  same  fate  the  next  year,  and  for  several  years  I  took  out  and 
reset  from  thirty,  forty,  fifty  to  seventy-five,  and  then  ran  down  to  fifty,  forty,  thirty, 
ten,  one,  one;  and  last  fall,  with  four  thousand  trees  set  and  two  thousand  bearing,  I 
lost  six  trees.     You  will  notice  that  two  falls  I  had  but  one  case  each. 

Question  4.  [How  many  trees  were  thus  reset?]  I  cannot  give  the  exact  number 
reset,  but  I  till  every  vacancy  every  spring,  and  the  most  of  these  trees  are  in  bear- 
ing, aud  many  of  them  have  been  until  they  are  past  their  prime. 

Question  5.  [How  long  did  the  trees  remain  healthy  ?]  I  am  not  certain  that  I  have 
lost  a  tree  with  yellows  the  second  time  in  the  same  place.  Since  the  orchard  reached 
a  large  growth,  filling  vacancies  has  beeu,  of  course,  at  a  great  disadvantage  to  the 
newly-set  trees,  but  evidently  the  fact  that  yellows  trees  preceded  them  has  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  I  apply  ashes  aud  a  little  manure  to  the  soil  where  the  old  tree  grew 
for  the  sustenance  of  the  new ;  and  for  years,  and  last  fall,  the  tree  occupying  the 
ground  where  I  lost  my  first  tree  with  yellows  was  heavily  laden  with  healthy 
peaches,  aud  that  is  only  one  among  many  like  it. 

Question  6.  [What  reason  have  you  for  thinking  that  the  trees  dug  out  were 
diseased  with  yellows  ?]  I  need  only  say  that  from  observation  and  experience  I 
know  the  yellows  at  sight  as  readily  as  I  do  the  most  familiar  varieties  of  fruit  or  the 
diftVreuce  in  different  species  of  trees.  The  best  written  description  of  the  yellow^s 
is  as  nothing  (in  conveying  an  idea  or  knowledge  of  it  to  a  person  who  has  never 
seen  it)  in  comparison  w^ith  the  certainty  of  knowledge  and  ability  to  detect  it  (when 
there  are  visible  signs)  that  come  to  some  who  have  a  practiced  eye  by  long  and  in- 
terested familiarity  with  it. — A.  C.  Meuiiitt. 

(10.)  Douglas,  Mich.,  April  18,  1688. 

My  own  experience  aud  that  of  some  of  my  neighbors  has,  I  think,  fully  established 
the  fact,  with  us,  at  least,  that  healthy  fruit  has  beeu  and  can  be  grown  upon  trees 
planted  in  the  i)lace  where  trees  diseased  with  ycllowii  have  been  removed. 


YELLOWS    AND    SOIL    EXHAUSTION.  139 

My  first;  experience  iu  this  directiou  occurred  the  siuiiiiu>r  of  1874,  wlicn,  in  an  or- 
chard of  some  four  thousand  trees,  I  discovered  six  trees  of  the  Early  Crawford  vari- 
ety, all  heavily  laden  with  fruit  and  standing  quite  near  to  each  other,  showing  un- 
mistakable signs  of  yellows.  A  part  of  the  fruit  on  each  of  these  trees  was  spotted 
with  red  spots,  the  red  streaks  extending  from  the  surface  to  the  pits.  I  had  those 
trees  dug  out  at  once  and  burned,  and  the  following  spring  planted  trees  iu  the  same 
places.  These  trees  cams  into  bearing  the  third  and  fourth  year  from  planting,  and 
produced  fine,  healthy  peaches,  and  continued  in  so  doing  during  the  life  of  the  trees. 

At  the  present  time  I  have  one  tree  that  bore  its  first  fruit  last  season,  being  four 
years  old  this  spring  from  setting.  The  fruit  was  perfectly  healthy.  This  tree  was 
set  in  the  place  of  one  taken  out  that  had  the  wiry  growth  of  wood,  and  had  yellows, 
and  no  mistake. 

From  my  own  experience,  and  with  quite  extensive  observation  as  connnissioner  of 
yellows  for  four  years,  I  am  strongly  inclined  to  the  belief  that  where  trees  having 
yellows  are  promptly  removed  and  destroyed  there  need  be  but  little  cause  for  alarm 
but  what  we  shall  be  able  to  furnish  healthy  and  fine  peaches  for  many  years  yet. — 
D.  W.  Wiley. 

(11.)  Douglas,  Mich.,  Apiil  18,  1888. 

In  reply  t  >  your  first  q  uestiou,  yes.  For  three  years  have  been  gathering  peacht-s 
from  those  reset.     Those  dug  out  bore  the  spotted  fruit  and  had  the  wiry  growth. 

2d.  [When  was  it  f]     In  1878 — ten  years  ago. 

3d.  [Under  what  circumstances?]     Condemned  by  the  yellows  commissioner. 

4th.  [H  )W  many  trees  were  thus  reset  f]     Three  hundred. 

5th.  [How  long  did  these  trees  remain  healthy  I]     Those  reset  are  healthy  to-day. 

6th.  [What  reason  have  j^ou  for  thinking  that  the  ti'eesdugout  were  diseased  with 
yellows?]  Because  the  fruit  was  spotted,  insipid,  and  some  of  the  trees  had  wiry 
growth,  and  were  condemned  by  the  yellows  commissioner.  The  three  hundred  trees 
were  taken  out  of  an  orchard  of  two  thousand  trees. 

I  lost  an  orchard  of  five  hundred  trees,  which  I  reset  two  years  ago,  and  the  trees 
are  doing  well. — Robt.  Ri:id. 

I  luade  additioual  inquiries  and  ^fr.  Reid  replied  as  follows,  under  date 
of  April  26 : 

In  answer  to  your  first  (luestiou  [How  long  after  yuu  dug  out  the  three  hundred 
yellows  trees  before  you  reset  ?]    The  next  year,  1879. 

2d.  [When  you  reset  did  you  manure  these  trees  or  give  them  any  other  treatment 
very  diti'erent  from  the  rest  of  the  orchard  ?]  Used  no  manure,  but  put  air-slaked  lime 
ou  all  my  orchard.     Have  manured  since.     The  soil  is  gravelly — wheat  soil. 

3d.  [In  the  other  orchard  of  five  hundred  trees  destroyed  by  yellows,  and  reset  two 
years  ago,  how  long  a  time  intervened  between  the  digging  out  and  the  resetting,  i.  e., 
what  year  did  you  dig  them  out  and  what  reset  ?]  Three  years.  Dug  out  the  last  in 
1883 ;  reset  in  1886. 

4th.  [Have  you  used  potash  or  any  special  fertilizer  on  the  trees  reset  two  years  ago 
in  place  of  the  five  hundred,  so  that  this  might  possibly  account  for  their  healthy 
appearance?]  Have  used  air-slaked  lime  on  them  also.  I  followed,  as  near  as  I 
could,  the  directions  found  in  John  Rutter's  book  on  Peach  Yellows. 

(12.)  Douglas,  Mich.,  March  16,  18S8. 

I  have  trees  growing,  that  were  planted  where  trees  having  the  yellows  were  taken 
out,  that  have  borne  healthy  fruit  three  years  and  show  no  signs  of  disease. 

James  F.  Taylou. 

Finally,  the  recent  admission  by  Professor  Penhallow  that  restored 
trees  are  liable  to  a  relapse;  the  statement  Dy  Henry  Race,  of  Pitts- 
town,  X.  J.,  that  trees  can  be  reclaimed  only  when  the  disease  is  in  an 


140  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

<'  incipient"  state;  the  stateineut  by  Charles  Bhick,  of  Hightstown,  X.  J., 
that  badly  diseased  trees  can  uot  be  cured,  and  the  universal  Xew  Jer- 
sey practice  of  removing  diseased  orchards  when  they  are  only  six  or 
eight  years  old,  would  seeiu  to  warrant  the  belief  that  the  potash  and 
phosphate  treatment,  which  has  been  most  vigorously  championed  in 
tbat  State,  does  not  really  cure  peach  yellows,  or  even  prevent  it. 

In  regard  to  "incipienf'yellows,  I  must  acknowledge  that  I  can  notde- 
tectitwith  any  degree  of  certainty.  Others  are  probably  as  helpless. 
I  am  sure  of  my  diagnosis  only  when  1  find  the  symptoms  previously 
recorded  as  characteristic  of  yellows,  and  then  the  disease  is  no  longer 
"incipient."  If  we  are  to  discuss  tbis  subject  intelligently,  we  must 
know  beyond  any  question  that  we  have  in  mind  the  same  malady. 

I  have  given  more  attention  to  the  Goessman-Penhallow  treatment 
than  to  any  other  because  it  has  been  more  prominently  before  the  pub- 
lic, and  because  it  seemed  to  offer  more  reasonable  hope  of  success  than 
any  other.  However,  there  is  no  end  to  so- called  remedies.  If  we  may 
believe  published  statements,  peach  yellows  has  been  been  cured  by 
stable  manure,  urine,  house  slops,  lime,  gas  lime,  woodaslies,  potash, 
chlorate  of  potash,  saltpeter,  ground  bone,  bone-black,  hot  lye,  hot  soap, 
hot  water,  fishbrine,  fish  compost,  and  various  other  commercial  fertili- 
zers, especially  those  compounded  of  muriate  of  potash  and  dissolved 
bone-black,  and  sold  under  the  name  of  "  Peach  Tree  Fertilizer,"  or 
"  Peach  Yellows  Remedy."  Some  manufacturers  have  also  advertised 
such  fertilizers  as  possessing  the  property  of  germicides.  All  such  state- 
ments are  false  and  misleading,  and  are  not  made  in  the  interest  of  peach 
growers. 

Wet  and  rich  soils.— In  some  orchards  which  1  have  examiued  the 
disease  was  unquestionably  worse  in  bottoms  and  sags,  which  receive 
more  or  less  drainage  from  other  parts  of  the  field  and  are  naturally  richer 
and  moister,  as  shown  by  the  appearance  of  the  soil  and  by  the  larger 
growth  of  weeds  and  trees  (see  Map  lY,  Spots  I,  III,  and  lY,  where  this 
was  particularly  noticeable).  It  is  less  apparent  on  Map  YII,  but  this 
may  be  owing  to  the  fact  that  on  two  sides  of  that  orchard  in  the  near 
vicinity  are  older  trees  badly  diseased  forsome  years,  and  from  which  this 
orchard  may  perhaps  have  been  infected,  if  it  did  uot  bring  its-infection 
from  the  nursery.  However,  the  disease  does  not  always  start  in  tiie  low- 
est part  of  an  orchard,  and  is  by  no  means  confined  to  sags  and  bottoms, 
as  the  maps  show  clearly  enough.  Even  in  the  same  orchard,  where  it 
affects  bottoms,  one  may  be  taken  and  the  other  spared.  Orchard  iSTo.  12 
of  this  report  affords  a  striking  illustration  of  this.  It  contains  two  shal- 
low sags  of  about  the  same  area,  and  of  the  same  general  character,  as  de- 
termined by  soil,  moisture,  weeds,  and  the  growth  of  trees.  If  anything, 
the  northwest  sag  is  a  little  moister  and  less  fertile.  The  same  weeds 
grow  in  both,  but  in  1888  the  weeds  were  observed  to  be  a  little  ranker 
in  the  south  sag.  The  northwest  sag  is  planted  with  the  Beers'  Smock. 
The  south  sag  is  planted  with  trees  purchased  for  Saiway,  but  which 


NEGLECT  OF  CULTIVATION  AND  PRUNING.        141 

seemed  to  ?ue  ideutical  with  Beers'  Smock.  The  northwest  sag  contained 
no  diseased  trees  in  1887  and  only  one  appeared  in  1888,  that  one  being 
on  the  onter  edge.  In  the  sonth  sag,  in  1887,  which  was  the  first  year  of 
attack,  I  found  eleven  trees  badly  diseased  by  yellows,  and  eleven  months 
later,  when  the  orchard  was  re  examined,  I  found  ten  additional  cases  in 
that  sag  and  ou  the  dry  ground  immediately  surrounding  it.  Most  of  the 
Crawfords  which  became  diseased  in  1888  were  also  near  this  bottom. 
Bad  the  disease  first  appeared  in  the  nortliwest  sag,  I  have  no  doubt 
the  conditions  in  1888  would  have  been  reversed  (see  the  marked  tend- 
ency toward  grouping  exhibited  on  the  maps).  The  general  o[)inion 
among  prominent  peach  growers,  both  on  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware 
Peninsula  and  in  Michigan,  is  that  the  disease  is  more  likely  to  appear 
first  in  bottoms  and  rich  places.  This  coincides  with  my  observations. 
The  etiect  of  moist  spots,  as  well  as  of  excessive  rains,  has  been  as- 
cribed to  the  dilution  of  mineral  constituents  in  the  earth  fluids,  whereby 
the  tree  starves  in  the  midst  of  plenty.  Another  explanation  is  that 
root-fungi  and  various  micro  organisms  thrive  better  in  such  situations 
I  have  at  present  no  theory  to  offer. 

AKTIFICIAL   oil   CULTriJE   COXDITIONS. 

IS'EGLECT  OF  CULTIVATION. — Tliis  was  oncc  a  favorite  explanation 
of  the  disease,  particularly  with  writers  who  never  went  abroad,  but 
evolved  truth  from  their  inner  consciousness.  In  recentyears,  however, 
I  have  heard  it  asserted  that  trees  left  in  sod  and  otherwise  maltreated 
were  the  only  ones  free  from  disease.  There  is  no  truth  in  either  asser- 
tion, or  rather  each  is  only  a  half  truth.  Many  orchards  in  Maryland 
and  Delaware  are  kept  entirely  free  from  grass  and  weeds  and  are  cul- 
tivated more  thoroughly  than  the  corn-fields;  but  cultivation  from 
early  s[)ring  to  middle  summer,  or  oven  all  the  year  round,  has  not  been 
able  to  prevent  the  appearance  of  yellows,  or  to  hold  it  in  check.  Many 
orcliards  which  have  received  the  utmost  attention  have  become  badly 
diseased.  On  the  other  hand,  neglected  orchards  are  by  no  means  free 
from  the  disease.    I  have  seen  it  in  a  number  of  such  orchards ;  e.  g.,  iu 

1887,  at  Still  Poud,  Md.-  in  a  small  old  orchard  owned  by  J.  Frank 
Wilson.  This  had  been  in  sod  and  used  for  a  sheep  pasture  four  years, 
but  contained  quite  a  number  of  recently-diseased  trees.     Again,  iu 

1888,  on  the  farm  of  G.  M.  Eldridge,  near  Cecilton,  Md.,  I  saw  many 
diseased  trees  in  an  old  orchard  used  as  a  pasture.  This  orchard  has 
been  i)lowed  only  once  in  six  yeiirs,  and  that  was  some  time  ago.  The 
disease  also  occurs  frequentl}^  on  lawns  and  grass  plots  never  plowed  or 
otherwise  disturbed  (Photo.  V),  and  I  have  moreover  seen  it  in  trees  on 
soil  entirely  free  from  vegetation  and  packed  hard  by  the  daily  tread 
of  many  feet. 

Neglect  op  pruning. — This  was  a  favorite  theory  with  A.  J.  Down- 
ing. He  advised  the  shortening-in  of  the  bearing  wood  one-half  every 
spring.  If  the  trees  came  from  an  originally  healthy  stock  he  believed  this 


142  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

■would  keep  them  healthy.  There  is,  however,  uo  good  reason  for  be- 
lieving it  wonld.  S.  H.  Wilson,  of  Baltimore  County,  Md.,  claims  to 
have  tried  it  faithfully  with  no  success.^  I  can  not  from  my  own  obser- 
vation fnrnish  any  testimony  on  this  point. 

Excessive  use  of  nitrogenous  manures. — The  belief  that  the 
spread  of  yellows  is  favored  by  the  use  of  animal  manures  is  quite  prev- 
alent, and  appears  to  have  some  basis  in  fact.  One  of  Dr.  Henry 
Ridgely's  orchards  which  blighted  most  lapidly  ^vith  yellow\s  was  very 
highly  manured.  The  McDaniel  orchard.  Map  YI,  was  also  twice  very 
heavily  manured  soon  after  being  set.  The  Price  orchards,  Nos.  2  and 
3  of  this  report,  have  also  been  freely  and  re])eatedly  manured.  In  par- 
ticular a  narrow  strij),  of  perhaps  one-half  acre,  on  the  northeast  side  of 
No.  2,  which  contains  some  stones  and  was  believed  to  be  less  fertile, 
received  great  quantities  ot  dung,  and  there  I  found  nearly  every  tree 
diseased  by  yellows. 

Orchard  No.  1,  however,  has  received  no  manure,  except  two  loads  on 
the  spot  indicated  on  Map  I.  Moreover,  in  uninfected  localities,  I  have 
seen  orchards  which  have  been  heavily  manured,  and  they  were  healthy. 
The  general  tendency  of  nitrogenous  manures  is  toward  the  excessive 
production  of  wood  and  foliage. 

Summing  up  the  evidence,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  in  infected 
districts,  nitrogenous  manures  have  a  bad  influence,  but  to  what  this  is 
due  I  am  unable  to  say. 

Degeneracy  due  to  continued  propagation  by  budding. — 
A  sufificieut  answer  to  this  is  the  statement  that  yellows  affects  seed- 
ling trees  no  less  destructively  than  budded  ones.  This  I  liave  verified 
repeatedly.  Seedlings  are  not  exempt,  and  I  have  not  even  been  able 
to  show  that  our  oldest  varieties  are  any  more  subject  to  this  disease 
than  those  but  recently  originated.  My  examinations  in  over  two  hun- 
dred orchards  have  led  to  no  positive  result.  All  varieties  appear  to  be 
subject  in  like  degree  when  all  other  conditions  are  the  same.  In  some 
orchards,  indeed, certain  varieties  were  much  worse  affected  than  others; 
but  often  the  very  next  orchard  would  furnish  contradictory  evidence— 
e.  (J.,  in  No.  1  of  this  report  Christiana  was  most  badly  diseased,  while 
in  No.  4  this  variety  had  suffered  very  little.  In  No.  2,  Mountain  Eose 
is  badly  diseased;  in  Nos.  4  and  5,  this  variety  is  scarcely  at  all  afl'ected. 
In  No.  5,  Early  liivers  suffered  much  in  1887  and  previous  years;  in  No. 
12,  not  at  all  until  1888. 

Even  in  the  same  orchard  other  things  than  variety  control  the  spread 
of  the  disease  (see  west  sag  and  east  bottom,  on  Map  IV).  This  is 
quite  different  from  what  occurs  in  many  diseases  due  to  fungi,  where 
the  limiting  effect  of  variety  is  very  sharply  marked.  In  peach  yel- 
lows, no  matter  which  variety  is  first  diseased,  all  become  affected 
alike  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  (see  Maps  I  and  III,  and  Tables  VI 
and  VIII).  Neither  is  it  true,  as  some  have  asserted,  that  the  variety 
'  The  American  Garden,  N.  Y.,  1887,  p.  — . 


ON  PROLONGED  KEPEODUCTION  BY  BUDS.         143 

which  shows  the  disease  first  is  always  the  first  to  become  badly  affected. 
In  orchard  No.  5  yellows  first  appeared,  ia  1885,  in  one  tree  in  the 
Mountain  Rose  variety.  This  was  removed  in  the  fall,  and  no  more 
affected  trees  appeared  in  that  variety  until  1888 — then  only  three. 
Other  varieties,  however,  were  affected  in  18SG  and  1887,  some  quite 
badly,  as  may  be  seen  by  consulting  Table  IV. 

Knight,'  Von  Thiimen,^  and  some  other  European  writers  have  in- 
sisted that  continued  propagation  by  buds,  cuttings,  etc.,  leads  to  de- 
generacy, and  there  is  a  very  general  impression  among  farmers  and 
fruit-growers  that  varieties  "run  out."  This  theory  is  not  wholly  un- 
reasonable, and  yet  a  vast  amount  of  careful  experimenting  must  be 
done  before  it  can  be  said  to  rest  on  any  broad  basis  of  well-established 
facts.  Propagation  by  budding  secures  the  continuation  of  a  variety 
for  an  indefinite  period,  but  this  is  the  ordinary  method  of  reproduction 
in  some  of  the  lower  plants,  and  is  something  quite  different  from  in- 
hreeding.  We  know  by  direct  experiment  that  the  latter  is  injurious, 
but  our  knowledge  of  the  effect  of  continued  budding  iiropagation  is 
largely  guess- work.  It  may  produce  deterioration,  but  there  is  no  un- 
impeachable evidence  that  it  does.  In  the  higher  animals  there  is  a 
distinct  individuality,  but  in  some  of  the  lower  animals  and  in  plants 
it  is  difficult  to  decide  what  constitutes  an  individual.  Strictly  speak, 
iug,  we  can  not  take  an  analogy  from  the  animal  world  and  say  that 
bu'Idiug  perpetuates  an  individual  indefinitely,  and  must  therefore  lead 
to  superannuation.  If  we  are  to  use  this  term  at  all,  it  would  probabl}' 
be  best  to  restrict  it  to  eacli  new-formed  bud,  in  which  case  there  cer- 
tainly could  be  no  such  thing  as  superannuation.  The  other  logical 
extremity  is  that  taken  by  Prof.  Huxley  in  his  discussion  of  the  non- 
sexual re  production  of  aphides,  etc.  According  to  this  view  all  the  Craw- 
ford's Early  or  Old  Mixon  trees  in  existence  are  parts  only  of  one 
individual.     These  opposing  views  appear  to  be  about  equally  absurd. 

Propagation  by  means  of  impekfeot  ok  diseased  pits. — 
There  is  undoubtedly  some  reason  for  believing  that  the  disease  is  prop- 
agated by  diseased  pits.  1  can  not  state  positively  that  trees  growu 
from  premature  peaches  will  develop  yellows,  but  I  think  it  likely. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  seeds  have  an  enfeebled  vitality,  and 
it  is  not  likely  that  they  will  give  rise  to  robust  trees.  How  great  the 
danger  may  be  from  this  source  I  am  unable  to  say.  Some  experiments 
of  my  own  lead  me  to  think  it  is  overestimated.  Exact  experiments  to 
determine  this  point  have  not  been  very  numerous. 

Some  years  ago  G.  H.  La  Fleur,  a  well-known  nurseryman  at  Mill 
Grove,  Mich.,  made  a  number  of  trials  to  determine  this.  In  his  first 
experiment  he  obtained  a  few  sickly-looking  seedlings  from  pits  taken 
from  trees  having  the  yellows.     The  growth  was  not  to  exceed  10  inches. 

>  Tram,  of  the  Hort.  Soc.  of  London,  flrdt  series,  Vol.  V,  1824,  p.  384  ;  ami  secoud 
series.  Vol.  I,  1835,  p.  147. 

*J)ie  Bcldmpfiing  der  Pihkraiikliciten  nnacrer  CuUarrjcwaohse.     Wiea,  1880,  p.  7. 


144  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEAC:iI    YELLOWS. 

They  had  the  appearauce  of  uuhealthy  trees,  and  were  pulled  and 
burned.  In  his  next  experiment  he  planted  in  the  fall,  without  crack- 
ing, a  peck  of  pits  taken  from  trees  havinj^  yellows.  None  grew.  The 
next  season,  18S1,  he  obtained  a  peck  of  pits  selected  with  great  care 
from  fruit  showing  yellows  plainly.  These  were  placed  in  sand  in  the 
fall,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  treated  healthy  pits.  In  the  spring  he 
cracked  them  himself,  and  found  only  one  in  a  normal  condition.  All 
the  others  had  rurned  black  or  dark  colored,  and  were  mostly  decayed. 
The  one  pit  which  had  the  appearance  of  being  sound  was  planted,  but 
never  came  up.' 

Premature  pits  also  failed  to  grow  fcr  Mr.  H.  E.  Bidwell  and  Dr.  J. 
C.  Arthur, 

In  August,  18S7,  on  the  farm  of  T.  J.  Shallcross,  Locust  Grove,  Md., 
I  saw  about  thirty  seedlings  planted  by  themselves  in  a  garden  and 
said  to  have  grown  from  i)remature  peaches.  Mr.  Shallcross  himself 
gathered  and  planted  the  pits.  The  trees  were  somewhat  smaller  and 
seemed  of  a  lighter  green  than  those  in  the  nursery  rows,  but  were  ap- 
parently healthy.  The  uiidersize  was  thought  to  be  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  of  a  late  spring  planting,  pits  being  usually  put  out  in  the  fall. 
Part  of  these  seedlings  were  inoculated  in  my  presence  with  diseased 
buds,  part  with  healthy  buds,  and  the  rest  were  left  unbudded.  In  the 
spring  of  1888  some  of  each  sort  were  sent  to  me  at  Hubbardston, 
Mich.,  along  with  several  hundred  other  trees,  and  set  upon  my  father's 
place.  The  packing  was  admirably  done,  and  all  the  trees  were  in 
excellent  condition,  except  those  which  grew  from  the  diseased  pits. 
These  did  not  appear  to  have  suffered  in  transit,  but  were,  nevertheless, 
in  a  ver3"  feeble  condition,  having  not  wintered  well.  Twenty-three  of 
these  trees  were  received,  and  IJ)  were  carefully  set  under  my  own  di- 
rection, but  when  examined  in  June  all  of  them  were  dead.  Three  were 
not  considered  promising  enough  to  set.  Of  the  other  trees  set  at  this 
time  only  an  exceedingly  small  i)er  cent,  had  died. 

From  field  examinations  I  am  also  reasonably  confident  that  seedlings 
sometimes  grow  from  premature  peaches,  having  seen  them  under  dis- 
eased trees  so  many  times  as  to  make  it  improbable  that  all  of  them 
grew  from  chance  healthy  i)its. 

Nevertheless,  froui  my  own  experiments,  I  think  it  is  certain  that  a 
great  part  of  the  premature  fruit  will  not  produce  seedlings.  In  the 
autumn  of  1887  I  carefully  selected  the  pits  of  2,070  premature  peaches. 
Thomas  J,  Shallcross,  of  Locust  Grove,  Md,,  and  Smith  &  Brother,  of 
McAllisterville,  Pa.,  also  collected  for  me,  making  a  total  of  3,104. 
These  pits  were  sent  in  small  lots  to  trustworthy  persons  to  determine 
what  per  cent,  would  develop  into  diseased  trees.  Most  of  these  pits 
were  planted  out  in  the  fall,  as  in  ordinary  nursery  culture.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a  synopsis  of  results  : 

'  Letter  of  September  20,  1887. 


DISEASED    PITS. 


145 


a 
S 

4> 

p.  o 

.9  f'-S 

S-i  C3   ^ 
■'-'CO 

'go*' 

.«   ^   g 

o  ♦'  S 

o 

-d 

a 

cd 

«  ca 
^  a 

cs-g 

la 

.2  5  P.- 

o 

CJ 

-a 

o 

a 

o 

«'3 

a 

p. 
.9 

s  © 

© 

ga^ 
a  "j:; 

■§  s 

o—  © 

"1 

^ 

"3 

©  > 

e3  a  - 

a;  a 

J3  3 

5^ 

a 
cs 

CS-- J 

1-1  p<- 

<^'il 
%% 

-Sis 

—   3   3 

H 

fl^ 

« 

S 

c 

o 

CM    tC 

^ 

tc 

4J 

-3 

<Dj3 

CO 

o 

.a 

o 

'd 

,a 

a,^  a 

o 

a 

o 

a 

a 
a 

O 

(C 

O 

^-4 

0)    m  — 

a 

to 

^ 

t;  o  =s 

« 

X 

CJ 

73 

a 

o 

S 

a 

IMC 

2     «3 

£.* 

5 

^ 

2 

» 

^ 

& 

t: 

^ 

03 

p 

« 

1 

«5 

^ 

"« 
•« 

a:) 

M 
83 

p 

bi 

© 

© 

© 
bC 

© 

s 

d 

C3 

0) 

a 

^ 

■^ 

a 

o 

a 
o 

«is 

a 
o 

§ 

a 
o 

i^^ 

o 

"A 

:i5 

Pd 

'A 

12! 

12; 

rs 

i 

4  a 

^ 

auj 

a. A 

o  o_; 

■^  a.S 

©3 

a 

a 

11 

II 

_,  8 
pa 

5 

00      . 
00    71 

|| 

a  o 

a  g 

o 

oo*l 

of 
<M  o5 

-a 

is 

-art 
vi   . 

^^ 

a5 

CO 

o  a 

o 

£^ 
c; 

.2 

a 

M 

a 
=  © 

© 

I 

3 
a 

HI 

3 

M  P. 

J'* 

a^ 

Izi 

» 

O 

^ 

1^ 

<1 

1] 

^ 

o 

p4>" 

Hg 

t§ 

P^ 

^  § 

^" 

n 

+= 

o 

CO 

a 

o 

o 

a 

a 
P, 

«    . 

.-a 

^1 

3^3 

ij5 
.  a  . 

si  e  =3 

pj  fee  be 

"•^^ 

»    .  o" 

i4 

I! 

©t: 
© 

«  S 

n 

-a 

o 
o  3 

^4 

..a 
o  = 

©   ^ 

a 

■S  cj^o 

-  © 

In 
1^^ 

"£a 
© 

o 

05 

M 

o 

w 

M 

■n 

a 

._ 

.. 

— <w 

•  •*-< 

•":tH 

r— 5*-t 

-ti--»- 

^O 

CO 

49 

M<=> 

M  ^ 

^   = 

a  o 

a  o 

tr^ 

ID 

<^  h 

O  tj 

O   i^ 

CJ    i^ 

r^    ^ 

1- 

S 

O  eS 

O  cS 

2  3 

cS 

oT  ? 

■»» 

J^ 

lt^ 

a  o 

02  '-^ 

a  ^ 

©    ^ 

t'2 

u 

a 

a 

rS-g 

-d^ 

tS   03 

O  OS 

5  o 

p 

§5 

g=s 

^« 

o 

Ul 

■-  £ 

..  i, 

"p  " 

-gi" 

•3  ■- 

?:  2 

00   ? 

£  01 

■^  S 

.■^"3 

-iS  c8 

o  <u 

o  « 

o  © 

CJ    © 

^  © 

1= 

'S  9 

(1  0/ 

c;  4j 

tS  a 

=M    © 

o  P 

©  >a 

DC  "T 

g.2 

^■53   . 

e^^  . 

E=-5    . 

a- 

H  S  © 

■d 

•v3 

«3        © 

c3        t© 

g      © 

"■  >-.  m 

-  •"  s 

^ 

2  >% 

§^ 

5^a'2 

'-^  a  g 

"af 

c..^! 

5 

5" 

Ot3 

cS-= 

„  =  s 

"5  t--- 

io.l 

S  a-s 

r^ 

> 

>> 

hJ 

^:l 

h:) 

H 

« 

^ 

">  . 

00     . 

t-'  ©' 
©  — 

i* 

.%m 

3M 

43:3 
||5 

a'E  = 

00    ._ 



t^S'** 

^S^ 

=  =  --a 

"_• 

sl 

gaa 

ill 

©p 

o 

^'g 

- ..'" 

^  '-^ 

-  .y^ 

1-^ 

=   = 

3  o 

5 1~-"  T 

iibC 

o.a 
© 

^ 
^ 

u 

11^' 

t(S  „ca 

r:  rH  1-1 

a  r-ilH 

©^ 

''I 

■< 

<i 

<< 

<< 

02 

O! 

11245— No.  9- 


-10 


146 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


Hi 

P 

H 

1 
a 

6 

'E 

E. 

P 
P 

a 

o 

o 

.a 
o 

s 

"p 

o 

R 
C3 

2 

o 
H 

10 

<« 
o 

2 

10 

a 

•P  "^5 
fd  »  g 

cu  0  ° 
^  O  m    . 

8p52 

5  S-^        f5 
^  ?  S  o  ° 

E  -^  •  p  ■;: 
o  P  s^  ra  fH 

u 

o 

rP 

1 

p 

<M 

U 

OJ 

o 

a 

CO 

0 

>- 

s 
■ft 

.a 

c 

p 
a 

ce 

5 
ca 

p 
o 

a 
c 

S 

o 

p. 

R 
R 

o 

s 

IE 
d 

a 

■d 
p 

P. 
<C 

;-! 

t: 
cS 

o 

a 

o 

^^ 

la 
^g 

P..S 

Qh 

o 

.. 

s 

,Q 

o 

-H 

O 

CO 

P-S 

* 

0) 

£1 

1 

i 

;t; 

t-l 

b£ 

& 

& 

^ 

o 

(E 

<D 

0) 

® 

Q 

p 

a 

P 

a 

p 

P^ 

;! 

;! 

^ 

^ 

o 

d~ 

^J 

li 

1 

(D 

(S 

1© 

s'S 

E  P. 

g.2 

? 

o 

a| 

o 

O 

p 

£  a 

^  5 

^  2 

E5« 

00  1» 

00  *^ 

<c  a 

5  ''■e 

CD   to 

.  d 
^  g 

p  °  § 

a-=  . 

^1  n 

11 

CO    09 

Is 

"5  M 

en 

^'"■^ 

H 

o 

O 

W 

^■| 

M 

'I" 

w1 

a« 

n 

--    t-l 

MO 

.  d 

M    k 

05 

a 

o 

-3 

WIS 

1.1 

• 

i=c.2 

S«l| 

fm>-.a 

-S 

go 

sa 

3 

fe-^' 

fe'S 

J  d 

e! 

s 

a  if 

CO  '"^ -<■ 

|MO 

!15 

<c  -J  2 

2^ 

III 

1^^ 

M 

m 

<l 

ja 

-|j  ^ 

.^(M 

.» 

§ 

P  o 

P  o 

03' C« 

1 

"  3^  ^ 

cc   ©  cfi 
^  +3    t^ 

§ 

2  ^ 

OJ   41 

OS 

S^i 

gMO 

C3    O 

CO 

o 

-^2 
■3« 

Pi 

a   u; 

.-T3 

"^S 

-SSI'S 

©"._„ 
1'-' 

^ 

lis 

^t3 

t:  o 

o  u 

41 

is 

CO  k. 

£2 

«  i'o'd 

fS   -  «   P 

tS 

fp 

K 

t> 

D2 

rt 

1^ 

.2«5 

g 

bC 

p- 

^ 

P^fH- 

CS 

TSd 

.,&^ 

^^M 

3.n 

;:^ 

00 

is 

5f^ 

t/3 

0^ 

<c  o 

CO    '^ 

CD    P 

-°  d 

o"3 
P 

S  s 

oo" 
in    . 

Sp4 

Bcfl 

a^ 

"S'd" 

g<s- 

*S  '" 

J3  ■' 

5  te 
a* 

p  q 

11 

IS 

CI 

3 

w 

3 

< 

1 

OS 

< 

DISEASED   PITS. 


147 


I* 

& 


as 


=3  3 
^1 


En  a  J 


HcS'S 


2-= 
H 


B-7. 


£f 

?i^ 

rprt 

'^'J  6 

o  =!  <° 

O     .J 

SfL<S 

•2^0 

^A^. 

la^- 

g   O  s 

■5HI-1 

Sl 

C3  c9 

®  S 

n  0 

!^2 

=  S 

J<f^ 

w  i' 

^  ° 

ga 

1^"^ 

00.  • 

00  ri 

00  A 

tiopq 

^f^ 

t-   0 

SQ 

£"3 

g=f 

a"" 

o« 

0  iT 

i^« 

^^ 

3  6^     S 
s  'S  P     .9 


E  5 
s  t«  a 


a    g* 


a3  0 


« 


^•- a  a 

a  "  a 

p2a  a 

^'^  §  ■-§ 

'    3  >^  ^- 

5  cj ' 


a   ^ 


o 
-d 


5  a- 

o  g 


a^ 


ft      . 
.9     ® 


2    'P. 


ag 


5      « 


a    « 


ill  i 

28  .*^ 
2-2  2 


« 


,a> 


cs 


a   1 

=s  »® 
^•93 

a  ■^•S 

O  beg 

-aa.E; 

•d  2i3 
.§2^ 


"CI  J 

So« 
£  1-.  o 

■%>^ 

07:  a 

s  u  o 
■^  ii'-a 
r^c:  a 

CD  a-d 
-^l  o  q 

a  o  c3 

^  ?;  o 

«  ^/^  tb  2  htS 

^  I'  £  aH  2  m 

p^  -C  -2  —  -3  o . 
ffl  g  a  S  ^  a  a 

S  S  "     > 


■E2-» 

^j  ^  te 

a  o  a 
o^  a 

I  SI 

^  o  s 


148  SPECIAL    EEPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

My  owu  collectings  and  transmissions  were  nnulc  with  tbc  utmost 
care,  so  that  no  mistake  might  occur.  None  but  premature  red-spotted 
peaches  were  gathered,  and  in  most  instances  these  were  of  normal 
size,  and  from  trees  which  manifested  no  symptoms  of  disease  till  1887. 
The  collections  by  Mr.  Shallcross  and  Smith  &  Brother  were  from  young 
trees  recently  diseased,  and  were  made,  I  believe,  very  carefully.  It 
seemed,  therefore,  that  these  pits  must  be  in  the  best  condition  for 
growing.  The  results  show  th-at  only  about  five-tenths  of  1  per  cent, 
grew.  Of  my  own  collecting  only  two  grew,  i.  e.,  less  than  1  in  1,000. 
Judging  from  these  experiments  a  majority  of  premature  peach-pits  will 
not  grow.  I  also  infer  this  from  the  fact  that  many  which  I  have  cracked 
and  examined,  especiallj'^  those  from  trees  diseased  more  than  one  sea- 
son, either  contained  no  kernel,  or  one  with  a  dead  embryo.  If  this 
holds  good  for  all  localities  and  seasons,  then  one  supposed  source  of 
danger  is  greatly  lessened.  However,  it  will  not  do  to  base  a  sweep- 
ing conclusion  on  the  experiments  of  a  single  year.  They  should  be 
repeated  several  seasons  on  a  large  scale. 

It  is  also  possible  that  enfeebled  seedlings  may  grow  from  peaches 
borne  on  the  yet  apparently  undiseased  portions  of  affected  trees.  Ko 
experiments  have  been  made  to  determine  this  point,  but  in  the  present 
state  of  our  knowledge  it  is  certainly  wisdom  to  procure  pits  from  un- 
infected districts  or  at  least  from  orchards  containing  no  diseased  trees. 
In  this  way  one  possible  source  of  danger  will  be  avoided.  Many 
nurserymen  now  j^rocure  seed  for  nursery  stock  from  infected  districts. 
In  such  cases  there  is  always  a  liability  of  getting  pits  from  diseased 
trees,  even  vhen  the  greatest  care  is  used,  and  this  liability  is  largely 
increased  when  the  seed  is  bought  indiscriminately  from  dry -houses  and 
canning  establishments,  with  no  previous  inspection  of  the  fruit.  There 
can,  I  think,  be  little  doubt  that  a  majority  of  the  diseased  orchards  in 
Isew  Jerse}',  Maryland,  and  Delaware,  were  budded  on  seedlings  grown 
from  pits  collected  in  districts  where  yellows  prevailed.  I  know  this 
to  be  true  of  many  orchards.  A  portion  of  even  the  so  called  "  nat- 
ural" or  '' Tennessee"  seed  is  grown  on  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake 
Peninsula  and  fraudulently  sold  to  nurserymen  for  the  genuine  article. 
Sometimes  this  spurious  seed  is  shipped  to  Tennessee  and  then  reshipped 
to  points  farther  north  ;  sometimes  it  never  gets  any  farther  south  than 
Philadelphia  or  Baltimore.  I  have  this  information  from  several  reliable 
sources.  I  do  not  know  how  one  can  be  certain  of  procuring  genuine 
Southern  pits  from  unbudded  trees  unless  he  collects  them  himself,  or 
deals  directly  with  Southern  men  of  well-established  character.  More- 
over, in  recent  years,  the  demand  for  this  kind  of  seed  has  probably  ex- 
ceeded the  entire  available  product  of  the  small  unbudded  orchards  of 
Tc-nnessee  and  other  Southern  States.  In  the  South  as  well  as  in  the 
North  the  large  orchards  are  of  choice  budded  fruit.  Finally,  granting 
that  some  pits  are  genuine  and  come  from  Tennessee  there  is  in  this 
fact  no  absolute  guaranty  of  safety,  because  yellows  probably  occurs  to 


ON    PRODUCTION    OF    YELLOWS    BY    INOCULATION.  149 

some  extent  iu  that  State,  and  is  nowhere  restricted  to  bntlded  fruit. 
Nurserymen  will  probably  do  best  by  personally  inspecting  orchards  iu 
fruit  season  and  selecting  pits  from  such  as  are  entirely  healthy.  If 
these  orchards  are  in  regions  where  yellows  has  not  appeared,  so  much 
the  better.  Nurserymen  hare  received  much  harsh  criticism,  but  as  a 
rule  I  believe  them  to  be  an  enlightened  and  honorable  class  of  men, 
ready  to  adopt  any  methods  likely  to  be  for  the  interest  of  their  patrons. 
Quite  ofteu  I  have  found  them  better  informed  on  horticultural  ques- 
tions, yellows  included,  than  any  other  persons  in  the  community'. 

Diseased  buds. — Can  yellows  be  transmitted  by  budding?  This 
question  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  aetiology  of  the  disease.  If 
it  can  be  answered  in  the  afiBrmative,  I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  to 
avoid  the  conclusion  that  yellows  is  a  contagious  disease. 

So  far  as  I  know,  William  Prince  was  the  first  to  assert  that  peach 
yellows  can  be  spread  in  this  way.  That  was  in  1828.  He  states  ex- 
plicitly that  a  healthy  tree  when  inoculated  froiti  a  diseased  one  becomes 
itself  diseased,  but  he  does  not  state  when,  where,  or  by  whom  this  was 
observed.^ 

In  the  spring  of  1831  Noyes  Darling,  a  most  careful  observer,  inocu- 
lated a  healthy  young  tree  with  a  bud  from  a  diseased  one.  The  bud 
died  and  the  stock  remained  healthy.^  The  evidence  in  this  case  is 
simply  negative. 

In  1811  Robert  Sinclair,  another  careful  observer,  states  that  on  one 
occasion,  before  he  had  a  nursery,  he  inserted  into  healthy  jieach  stocks 
twelve  buds  from  a  favorite,  early  purple  peach,  which  he  suspected  of 
yellows  but  desired  to  preserve.  The  buds  were  taken  from  the  healthiest 
branch,  but  when  they  had  grown  about  3  feet  they  showed  the  disease 
so  plainly  that  they  were  pulled  and  burned.^ 

In  1842  or  1843,  discussing  yellows  in  his  "  Catalogue,"  A.  J.  Downing 
states  that  it  may  be  transmitted  from  infected  trees  by  grafting  or 
budding,  but  we  are  not  told  whether  this  statement  was  a  result  of  his 
own  observation.  Mr.  Downing  often  appropriated  and  digested  the 
statements  of  other  men  without  credit,  and  this  may  have  b*ien  an 
instance  of  that  kind. 

In  December,  1811,  Noyes  Darling,  who  had  been  making  additional 
observations  and  experiments  since  1831,  reported  again  as  follows : 

If  a  bud.  from  a  diseased  tree  is  inoculated  into  a  healthy  stock,  v/hetber  peach, 
apricot,  or  almond,  the  stock  will  become  diseased  and  die.  *  »  »  i  took  some 
buds  from  a  tree  having  symptoms  of  yellows,  and  inserted  part  into  peach,  part  into 
apricot,  and  part  into  almond  stocks.  Some  of  the  inoculations  took  well,  but  ail 
showed  marks  of  disease  next  season.  The  peach  and  almond  stocks  with  their 
buds  died  the  second  winter  after  inoculation.  One  apricot  stock  lived  five  years,  but 
its  peach  top  grew  in  that  time  to  be  only  about  3  feet  high.* 

1  Loc.  cit. 

^  New  York  Farmer  and  Horticultural  Ileiyository,  N.  Y.,  1831,  pp.  1)  and  10. 
^Magazine  of  Horticulture,  1S41,  p.  212;  see  also  Farmer's  Eeijit^ter,  1841,  pp.  357, 358. 
*The  Cultivator,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1845,  pp.  GO-62. 


150  SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  some  account  of  the  symptoms  whicli  pre- 
ceded the  death  of  these  trees  was  not  given.  This  would  have  made 
a  more  complete  case. 

Two  or  three  years  later  a  writer  in  The  Farmer  and  Mecliauic  states 
that  from  his  own  observation  and  experience  he  is  led  to  believe  thai 
the  disease  has  been  aggravated  and  spread  by  budding  fmm  trees  con 
tainiugincipient  seeds  of  the  disease  not  yet  externally  developed,  A 
bud  may  be  taken  from  a  tree  which  is  apparently  sound  but  not  really, 
and  after  a  time  both  trees  will  become  affected.^ 

In  18i9,  S.  W.  Cole,  an  unusually  careful  writer,  states  that  "  healthy 
trees,  luoculated  with  buds  from  diseased  trees,  soon  become  affected 
also.  "  He  speaks  guardedly  on  most  points,  but  dogmatically  on  this 
one— says  it  is  a  "  well-established  fact."^ 

In  1853,  J.  J.  Thomas,  another  careful  writer,  says  of  peach  yellows, 
"  It  is  quickly  induced  by  inserting  the  bud  from  an  affected  tree  into  a 
healthy  stock." ^ 

Dr.  F.  S.  Dunlap  states  that  from  experiments  in  his  garden  and  on 
his  farms,  principally^  between  1805  and  1S8G,  he  is  perfectlj^  sure  that 
yellows  can  be  transmitted  b^  budding.  lie  has  inoculated  from  twenty- 
five  to  thirty  trees  in  different  years,  "  with  buds  taken  from  yellows 
trees  with  the  result,  invariably,  of  giving  yellows  to  the  l;ree  budded." 
The  inoculated  trees  grew  from  pits  of  "  natural "  fruit  procured  in  North 
Carolina,  Virginia,  Tennessee,  and  Kentucky.* 

Dr.  Henry  Eidgley  is  also  anthority  for  the  statement  that  yellows 
may  be  produced  by  budding.  Many  years  ago,  when  not  so  well  ac- 
quainted with  yellows,  he  inoculated  quite  a  large  number  of  seedlings 
with  buds  procured  from  a  tree  which  bore  choice-looking  prematures. 
All  these  trees  died  of  yellows  within  a  few  years.  None  lived  long 
enough  to  bear  fruit.^ 

Hon.  T.  T.  Lyon  also  states  that  wlicn  yellows  wcis  first  introduced 
into  Michigan  it  was  budded  into  seedling  trees  and  distributed  in  this 
way.  At  Benton  Harbor,  an  Early  Crawford  tx*ee,  imported  from  New 
Jersey,  ripened  its  fruit  in  advance  of  the  u-viial  season  of  that  variety. 
'-  In  ignorance  of  such  disease  this  was  tre^tted  as  a  sport,  and  the  tree 
was  literally  cut  in  pieces  to  supply  bnds  for  propagation."** 

In  1882,  G.  H.  La  Fleur,  of  Millgrove,  Mich.,  undertook  to  settle  the 
infectious  nature  of  yellows  by  experiment.  Concerning  his  experi- 
ments he  writes  as  follows,  under  date  of  September  30,  1887  : 

The  following  August  (1882)  I  budded  thirty-two  soimd  stocks  to  buds  taken  from 
a  tree  showing  yellows  in  the  fruit  bat  not  in  the  tree  itself.  Eight  of  the  buds 
started  the  following  spring.     Four  ouly  started  one-half  inch  to  one  inch,  and  then 

1  Quoted  in  Farmer's  Cabinet,  1848,  pp.  182,  183. 

2  American  Fruit  Book,  Boston  ar,d  New  York,  1849,  p.  18.3. 

» American  Fruit  CuJturist,  Aul-urn,  N.  Y.,  1853,  p.  285.  Mr.  Thomas  repeats  this 
statement  in  the  last  edition  of  nis  book,  N.  Y.,  Wm.  Wood  &  Co.,  1885. 

*  Letters  of  September  2, 188/,  and  January  17,  1888. 

*  Conversation,  August,  18:^8. 
« Letter  of  January  19,  1S88, 


ON  PEODUCTION  OF  YELLOWS  BY  INOCULATION.     151 

/ailed  to  grow  and  soon  diud  ;  ouo  bud  grew  3  iucbus;  oue  a  little  over  4  iucbes  ;  two 
buds  grew  8  and  10  iuclies  high  ;  all  turned  yellow  and  looked  sickly-.  In  August  of 
the  same  year  I  pulled  up  tbc  trees  and  burned  them.  After  doiug  this  it  occurred  to 
luo  that  the  stonks  should  have  been  left  in  the  ground  to  grow,  to  test  the  question 
as  to  whether  yellows  could  be  communicated  to  healthy  stocks  by  inserting  diseased 
buds.  I  hope  you  will  test  thoroughly  this  last  point,  as  that  is  of  great  importance 
to  know.  If  the  disease  can  be  communicated  to  healthy  stocks  by  inserting  diseased 
buds,  that  fact  would  prove  yellows  to  bo  a  contagious  disease  and  not  the  result  of 
starvation  or  anj'  lack  of  elements  in  the  soil. 

Ill  this  case  an  opportiiuity  was  certainly  lost.  Had  Mr.  La  Fleur 
left  the  trees  for  a  few  years,  he  would  have  learned  beyoud  question 
whether  yellows  can  be  communicated  to  the  stock  by  the  insertion  of 
diseased  buds.  This  is  the  very  gist  of  the  inquiry.  A  diseased  bud 
could  not  be  expedited  to  make  a  very  healthy  growth,  and  yet  it  might 
not  transmit  disease  to  the  stock.  If  it  did,  it  would,  as  Mr.  La  Fleur 
states,  be  good  proof  of  the  contagious  nature  of  yellows. 

I  have  presented  as  strong  an  array  of  testimony  in  favor  of  this  be- 
lief as  I  could  find,  yet,  in  a  scientific  sense,  it  must  be  confessed  to  be 
stronger  by  virtue  of  the  names  cited  than  by  the  circumstantial  nature 
of  the  statements.  In  studj'ing  these  statements  critically  it  seemed  to 
me  there  were  broken  links  in  the  chain  of  evidence,  and  chances  for 
error.  Most  of  the  statements  left  much  to  be  desired  in  the  matter  of 
detail,  as  to  when,  where,  and  under  just  what  circumstances  these  re. 
suits  were  obtained.  I  was  the  more  inclined  to  doubt  some  of  these 
statements  from  the  well-known  fact  that  errors  often  pass  current  from 
writer  to  writer,  unchallenged  for  decades,  especially  when  first  ex- 
pressed dogmatically  b^"  some  strong  man. 

My  own  experiments  were  begun  with  a  view  to  throwing  light  on 
some  of  the  uncertain  points,  especially  on  the  question  of  whether 
the  disease  could  be  transmitted  from  inserted  buds  to  healthy  stocks. 
I  had  no  well-established  belief  that  the  inoculations  would  succeed, 
but  had  a  strong  desire  to  confirm  or  invalidate  the  statements  already 
made.  Every  precaution  was  taken  to  avoid  sources  of  error.  I  col- 
lected the  buds  myself  from  trees  which  bore  premature  red-spotted 
peaches  and  the  characteristic  diseased  shoots;  carried  them  to  the 
nurseries;  watched  the  operation  of  budding;  and  staked  ofl' and  re- 
corded the  location  of  the  trees.  The  nurserymen  on  whose  grounds 
these  trees  were  budded  also  made  proper  entries  in  their  books  so 
that  when  the  trees  were  removed  there  could  be  no  possible  mistake. 
The  examinations  in  1888  were  made  by  myself  unless  otherwise  stated. 

The  inoculations  were  made  in  August  and  September,  1887,  in  Mary, 
land  and  Delaware.  jSfearly  one  thousand  healthy  trees,  five  or  six 
months  old,  were  inoculated  with  the  diseased  buds  as  in  ordinary  bud- 
ding, and  five  hundred  similar  trees  were  reserved  unbudded  for  compar- 
ison. In  the  spring  of  1888  i)art  of  these  trees  were  sent  to  experiment 
stations  or  private  individuals,  and  the  rest  were  left  in  the  nursery 
rows.  The  following  table  gives  the  result  of  these  experiments  up  to 
date,  so  far  as  observed  or  reported  : 


152 


SPECIAL   REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


.is  C-- 


'■tL 

o 

o 

•", 

3 

4d 

t: 

.;:: 

y. 

f^ 

k 

- 

«^  fs 

■B 

=5 

/ 

& 

Q; 

3 

O 

c 

X 

.5 

c 

a 

o 

-^ 

CC 

i 

a 

tl 

> 

■- 

_ 

a 

> 

n 

o 

::: 

<1 

> 

o 

^ 

5 

" 

s 

■s 

" 

b' 

g 

>- 

5 

c 

? 

o 
cr 

= 

s 

O 

h 

■^ 

— 

■;:: 

a; 

"^ 

a 

^, 

o 

o 

-i 

^ 

■s 

s 

^ 

t 

g 

-3 

S' 

cs 

p 
5, 

^ 

^ 

o 

1) 

0) 

o 
a; 

o 

5 

2 

s  £"0  u  — '-',5  t. 
c—  ^   crSa  o 

:;:  =  a5  =  "  = 


^  5^,5..    i;= -'S;  = 


,a      g-3 


;5S^:5§^    2 


X     00  r"  i.  .^^ 

"^  S  S  " 

g         OOC-Sgofi 

h  =  5  r  Sis«'5 


■pii<l  p,)},i<}sn[  M\\ 
pnnoJTj  .10  ^0[9q  sjno.ids  eAiO[ 


•^qjlBDH       " 


•injiqnoa 


•pasBasiQ 


iwaa 


■pnq  paj.iasni  aq; 
pnnoaB.io.AiO[3q  ejiiojds  BAiOi 
"10^  padoi9A9pqoiqAV  •juda.ia.x 


■iqaiBan 


•Itijiqnoci 


•pgSBSSIQ 


•pBdQ 


._  J  &= 


M|a 

5 

<S 

«4^i 

''' 

~ 

^•-=s 

T. 

-5« 

w 

c 

-^ 

7^J5 

-H^  j; 

® 

US 

^ 

:  <1 

-3] 

•*  fl  e 


&-M2„g 

A'-  ^   i 

:;:.2^.s... 

fcX' =  O  c     ■  ^ 

"1 


!«    OC*"-  ^  r—  V4 

<1 


•->    s 

■OrSj   b. 


E-  rt  rt  o  "  a:  ^ 
O  C  «  J  J  -  ^ 


jHHhI-5 


•3  a  °5<)  ^ 

**  ii  oi  'r^ 


w-j=<B-«-      S    .'^   ,5g  1.  2  5.S  x-:      a   . 

i:5-~T       ..-S.a9  -^.2  2  5  c4  S  ^  Ccc 


rS    O    *    _    O  «      . 

=s  Co  5="=  51! 
^ ._    ,3     '-.  St  =«  ;; 

m 


rs  o  a 

a  ^  o 

''-a 

a-gaS 

O  P  «9  M 


a  3    c/:;z;  . 
I  ogOrtP^M 


0-00   >    3    05 

BOO  o  a  a 

a"-!  ».  o  p 


ON   PRODUCTIOX    OF    YELLOWS    BY    INOCULATION. 


153 


•ti  t-  ®^ 


^=!«•^-"^ 


a  T. 


«  "  £    L^    >  ,— 

:C .::  c3  O  S  T*  r;  ;g 


c  r!      t-<  o  s  — :^ 

*-•  ^  "^      r—  CO  rn  '-' 
o  c  ^c-(  iJBoH  0^3 


■J-  S  o       o  0-3    • 

^  o  a  o     —  r  _r? 


«  5  — !  <-.  —  S  ■*" ; 


43  ;3      o 

a  4i  „•  S  ^  -=  [^.  ?? 


-00  pr"^ 


•  o  O  p  - 


-  •/  ® 

0-0 


Sog 


-od'^H 


-  -      5  fcj..r 

sf.  a; 


i  '^ 


(U  C  "  .. .  . 

•  cj  ci  Q^  r^  a 
5  ■^  p^^  p;  S 


■r  o  -  J  B  "^ 


—    ^ 


—•  <c  a  O 

«  t  °  a 


orScs 
^  fct. 

2-s  S  aE 


p.^     0'= 

p-i  o  a  ^"^ 

00  s-H  &K."t; 

~'i^  t>-2  o-»* 
t.  «  +i  -  rt  „ 

<5 


«|f  Ib  o--^'^'^ 
"  — =^  °  — ="  c  =-2 

E^BtHVi   O  ft  —  ,B    i;^ 


C   Bl-I  O  S  i 
^^   >£   gi 

5"  ^  •=  "^  f^' 

S    So.a--S'5 

*D^*^  B  s 

o  ^  "S  o  o-.g 
-r  a  <D  t-i  c  -!  g 
"t<  d  =,*  o  a  o 
C-s -:;►=<  X  «  ^ 


w  .s  a    .  B 

gid  -g  ■=  re  0 


t^EB  B    r 

fc-  25  "  ^,-  ,_• 

a>  O  'n  c  a 

m 


5H 
B 

6 

1-1 

'A 

2 

-J3 

'S 

V.' 

TS 

V) 

- 

5 

t^ 

a 

^- 

■St 

> 
0 

W 

^ 

m 

0 

0 
fct 

w 

o 

s 

^ 

*a 

i-= 

01 

0 

03 
0 

=  rH  qObf 


fi  •-  £  "^  r^-  B 

3     STL     S 


■  ■  -  t<  "  -  ■"  c  «  *^  %-, ./ 

2:^  =  o«-=?.2  3°  • 


'  =  i-=5^:sa 


.—  c 


-  ■"■  ^'  3   '^  ^  •-- 

•'.«  •-  »  i:  a  ^_ 

j^.tS  S  5  3  a- 

H 


So 


5  73 


O  ■^_^^ 


*-  —  "  'ir  Q  ^  y 


po'- 
0 -3 


P^' 


o 


c3^ 


l>i:  "t:  a  a 


;  33  bi- 


B  ^ 


;g.2 

)^  a 


El,  =s  •; 


o - c- -^ 


.S^  X"^'  is 


,;:!  &^  ^  X!  ?■  X  ,= 


(SOW      a 

iilld 


CS5  BOi 

^  'i  SI'S  - 
^  £  «-•  £ 


ui 


:SS5  i 


H^  j; 


^^ja|H, 

--  o  *  B  _ 

"^-  B.5  ^       ?"3 

'.  =  ft  «  -!  iD  ^n 


> 


154  SPECIAL   REPORT    ON   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

When  examined  in  June  lot  III  gave  evideuce  of  disease,  but  owing 
to  the  fact  that  all  of  the  trees  were  badly  dried  iu  transit  and  had 
made  but  a  feeble  growth,  I  did  not  feel  like  using  this  lot  as  the  basis 
for  argument,  unless  further  developments  should  fully  warrant  me  in 
doing  so.  Not  having  seen  these  trees  since  June,  I  am  unable  to  re- 
port exactly  their  present  condition.  The  same  remark  applies  to  lots 
IV  and  VI,  which  I  have  not  seen  since  they  were  budded. 

Neglecting,  therefore,  all  trees  which  were  unfortunately  dried  iu 
transit,  or  were  not  personally  examineil,  or  iu  which  the  disease  may 
have  been  derived  from  the  stock,  we  have  left  for  special  consideration 
in  this  connection  lots  I  and  II.    These  give  unequivocal  results. 

Lot  I,  inoculated  with  buds  from  characteristic  shoots  of  robust  young 
trees  in  the  first  year  of  the  disease,  was  left  in  the  nursery  where 
budded.  The  trees  were  budded  in  August,  18S7,  and  were  examined 
in  August  and  November,  1888.  Most  of  the  inserted  buds  "took,"  but 
only  about  one-fourth  of  them  grew.  Some  of  these  buds  developed 
into  shoots  which  appear  to  be  healthy,  and  some  into  diseased  shoots. 
In  a  feAv  cases  the  inserted  bud  developed  in  a  normal  way,  but  the 
stock  became  diseased.  This  was  also  the  case  with  some  stocks  on 
which  the  inserted  bud  "took"  but  did  not  grow.  The  infection,  what- 
ever it  may  be,  was  transmitted  from  the  bud  to  the  stock  in  about 
forty  per  cent  of  the  inoculations,  i.  <?.,  the  previously  healthy  stocks  con. 
tracted  the  disease  from  the  inserted  buds  and  sent  out  ieeble  wiry 
grow'ths,  often  at  a  distance  of  some  inches  from  the  inserted  bud.  This 
was  the  point  I  most  desired  to  establish,  because,  as  already  stated,  I 
thought  it  likely  that  the  inserted  buds  might  grow  into  diseased  shoots 
and  the  stock  still  remain  healthy.  The  evidence  of  this  infection  of 
the  stocks  could  be  seen  in  July,  was  clear  in  August,  and  still  plainer 
in  November,  when  nearly  all  the  winter  buds  on  some  of  the  stock 
shoots  were  just  iiushing  under  the  influence  of  the  disease.  Even  as 
early  as  August  2G  per  cent,  of  the  infected  stocks  were  dead,  and 
others,  then  languishing,  were  dead  in  November. 

Of  the  entire  lot  of  two  hundred  trees,  only  thirty-nine  appeared  to 
be  entirely  healthy  in  November.  From  the  foregoing  table  it  will  be 
observed  that  even  in  August  a  very  unusual  number  of  the  trees 
were  dead,  and  in  November  the  condition  of  the  trees  was  still  worse, 
less  being  healtliy  and  more  being  dead.  Early  iu  the  season  many  of 
these  dead  trees  had  put  out  feeble  shoots  from  the  inserted  bud  or  the 
stock,  but  these  grew  only  irom  one-half  an  inch  to  three  inches  and 
then  died.  A  June  examination  would  have  shown  fewer  dead  trees 
and  a  much  larger  number  of  apparently  healthy  ones.  Even  i:i  Au- 
gust the  trees  marked  doubtful  and  diseased  showed  a  green  and  thrifty 
top,  and  at  a  distance  gave  no  more  indication  of  di.sease  than  do 
older  trees  in  the  first  stage  of  yellows.  As  a  rule,  however,  their 
growth  was  not  as  robust  as  tliat  of  trees  in  the  adjoining  rows.  These 
neighboring  trees  are  of  the  same  age  and  stock,  and  were  budded  at 


ON  PRODUCTION  OF  YELLOWS  BY  INOCULATION.     155 

the  same  time,  but  from  healthy  scious.  The  contrast  was  very  strik- 
ing", and  the  comparison  left  no  doubt  whatever  that  in  this  case  the 
disease  was  due  entirely  to  the  insertion  of  the  unhealthy  buds  (see 
Photos  XXVIII-XXXl). 

Lot  II,  inoculated  with  buds  apparently  healthy,  but  taken  from  a 
tree  on  which  were  some  limbs  in  the  first  stage  of  the  disease,  was 
sent  to  a  locality  free  from  yellows.  Up  to  the  last  of  June  only  one 
tree  showed  any  suggestion  of  disease  and  this  was  doubtful.  Unfor- 
tunately, these  trees  were  not  examined  in  the  autumn,  and  their  pres- 
ent condition  is  not  known.  It  is  quite  x^ossible  that  they  have  already 
developed  yellows,  or  that  they  will  do  so  after  some  years.  Xo  nurs- 
eryman  w^ould  ever  use  such  diseased  and  imperfect  buds  as  I  inserted 
into  lot  I,  but  the  buds  inserted  into  lot  II  appeared  to  be  well  de- 
veloped and  perfectly  healthy,  and  might  have  been  selected  for  ordinary 
budding  by  a  careless  or  unscrupulous  man.  The  future  of  these  trees 
will  therefore  be  watched  with  the  greatest  interest,  since  it  may  throw 
additional  light  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  disease  is  distributed.  A 
point  very  interesting  in  connection  with  this  discussion  is  whether  trees 
of  the  same  age  and  same  variety,  and  from  the  same  nursery,  are  en- 
tirely healthy  in  one  locality  and  badly  diseased  in  another.  I  have 
made  some  observations  on  this  point,  but  not  enough  to  be  able  to 
speak  positively.  The  evidence,  however,  favors  the  belief  that  such 
trees  are  often  healthy  in  one  locality  and  diseased  in  another,  and  if 
further  inquiry  substantiates  this  conclusion,  it  will  be  an  additional 
reason  for  thinking  that  j'ellows  is  not  always  to  be  attributed  to  the 
nursery,  but  may  also  spread  in  other  ways.  My  own  view  at  present 
is  that  the  first  affected  tree  in  auj'  district  is  always  an  introduced 
one,  but  that  when  once  introduced  the  disease  spreads  from  orchard 
to  orchard  irrespective  of  the  origin  of  the  stocks  or  buds. 

Spread  of  the  disease  by  infected  pruning  knives  or 
SAWS. — Many  persons  have  asserted  that  the  disease  may  be  propa- 
gated in  this  way.  I  have  no  positive  evidence  on  this  point;  and  no 
experiments  have  yet  been  undertaken  to  settle  it,  owing  to  the  great 
amount  of  work  involved  in  the  other  examinations  and  experiments 
here  set  forth. 

This  experiment  should  be  tried  carefully  on  registered  limbs  in  an 
uninfected  district,  or  if  in  an  infected  one  then  in  a  larger  number  of 
trees  and  in  as  healthy  an  orchard  as  can  be  found. 

Nurseries  not  responsible  for  all  of  the  outbreaks. — On 
other  grounds  than  those  already  set  forth,  I  am  confident  that  neither 
sound  stocks  nor  healthy  buds  will  entirely  protect  from  yellows.  The 
disease  does  not  all  come  from  the  nursery.  It  must  have  some  other 
means  of  dissemination.    The  following  are  my  reasons  for  this  belief: 

(1)  In  the  infected  districts  I  could  not  satisfy  myself  that  the  trees 
of  one  nurseryman  were  more  subject  to  yellows  than  those  of  another, 


156  SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS. 

altliough  I  took  grciit  pains  in  many  instances  to  trace  the  history  of 
the  trees  especially  if  they  were  young  ones. 

(2)  Some  experiments  with  stocks  and  buds  of  a  known  character 
seem  to  show  this  quite  conclusively.  In  orchard  No.  31  of  this  report 
special  i^ains  was  taken  to  secure  healthy  trees.  This  orchard  was 
budded  and  planted  by  Walter  Morris,  cashier  of  the  Farmers'  Bank, 
Dover,  Del.  He  procured  the  seed  from  a  load  of  healthy  imtural  fruit, 
brought  into  Dover  and  sold  to  Mr.  Richardson  in  a  year  when  there 
was  a  great  scarcity  of  peaches.  They  were  budded  next  year,  Mr.  Mor- 
ris selecting  the  scions  himself  from  a  healthy  orchard  which  hung  very 
full  of  fruit.  The  yellows  first  appeared  in  this  orchard  about  four  years 
ago,  i.  c,  four  years  alter  budding,  and  spread  very  rapidly  in  188G  and 

1887.  I  came  across  a  similar  case  on  the  farm  of  S.  H.  Derby,  near 
Woodside,  Del.  Mr.  Derby  selected  the  pits  himself  from  a  very  thrifty- 
bearing  orchard,  free  from  yellows,  and  cut  the  buds  from  healthy  trees 
in  an  orchard  wliere  yellows  was  unknown  and  where  it  did  not  appear 
until  recently,  *'.  e.,  within  the  last  three  or  four  years.  This  orchard 
contains  about  10  acres  and  is  nine  years  old  from  the  bud.  The  first 
premature  peaches  appeared  in  18SG,  i.  e.,  six  years  after  budding  and 
several  years  after  the  orchard  had  fruited.  In  1887  I  saw  many  dis- 
eased trees  in  this  orchard,  and  there  were  new  cases  in  1888. 

(3)  The  fact  that  orchards  frequently  make  a  vigorous  earlj^  growth 
and  then  bear  peaches  for  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  often  in  enormous 
quantities,  before  showing  symptoms  of  yellows. 

I  have  observed  many  such  cases.     A  few  may  be  cited. 

Orchard  No.  IG  of  this  report  is  thirty-three  years  old  and  has  been 
enormously  productive,  having  yielded  its  last  crop  in  1888.  This  or- 
chard was  over  twenty  years  old  when  yellows  first  made  its  appear- 
ance in  it,  and  it  did  not  suffer  materially  from  the  disease  until  some 
time  after  1880. 

An  orchard  owned  by  J.  Frank  Wilson,  Still  Pond,  Md.,  is  twenty-five 
years  old  and  contains  about  three  hundred  trees.  Yellows  first  ap- 
peared in  1886  in  two  trees  only.  When  I  saw  the  orchard  in  1887  it 
contained  about  twenty  diseased  trees.  In  1888  there  were  a  number 
of  new  cases.    This  orchard  has  been  productive;  it  bore  some  fruit  in 

1888.  The  trees  lived  healthily  for  twenty-two  years,  during  the  last 
four  of  which  yellows  was  present  in  another  orchard  on  the  same  farm, 
No.  4  of  this  report. 

An  orchard  of  70  acres  owned  by  James  Hurdd,  Locust  Grove,  Md. 
is  nineteen  years  old  and  has  borne  thirteen  full  crops  of  peaches,  the 
last  one  being  in  1888.  Mr.  Hurdd  assured  me  that  this  orchard  never 
bore  a  i^remature  peach  or  showed  any  signs  of  yellows  until  .1881,  l.  e., 
it  was  entirely  free  from  disease  for  the  first  fourteen  years  (fifteen 
from  the  insertion  of  the  bud).  When  I  saw  this  orchard  in  1887  about 
•  two  hundred  trees  were  diseased,  and  about  five  hundred  more  had 
been  cut  down  in  previous  j'ears.     Many  new  cases  appeared  in  1888. 


NURSERIES  AND  YELLOWS.  157 

lu  riding  past  I  counted,  la  the  outer  rows,  uext  the  liiglivray,  over  one 
hundred  and  twenty  aHected  trees,  which  were  bhized  with  an  axe  and 
ready  to  be  cut  down.  A  young  orchard  on  the  same  farm  is  diseased 
quite  as  badly  as  this  ohl  one,  although  it  only  bore  its  first  peaches 
last  year  and  its  first  crop  this  year.  These  orchards  are  but  a  short 
distance  from  jSTo.  7  of  this  report. 

In  188  7,  at  Felton,  Del.,  George  W.  Killen's  old  orchard  of  abont  10 
acres  contained  nearly  five  hundred  diseased  trees.  This  orchard  is 
twenty-two  years  old,  and  has  been  productive.  Mr.  Killen  assured 
me  that  he  never  had  any  premature  peaches  or  diseased  trees  until 
1884:,  and  that  year  only  a  few  trees  were  diseased.  When  I  saw  the 
trees  many  of  them  were  badly  aftected,  bearing  premature  red-spotted 
peaches,  and  an  abundance  of  the  characteristic  shoots  on  trunk  and 
main  limbs. 

The  same  year  near  Frederica,  Del.,  Eev.  AVilliamH.  England's  old  or- 
chard of  about  5  acres  contained  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  diseased 
trees.  They  hung  full  of  premature,  small,  red-spotted,  insipid,  worth- 
less Melocotons  and  Old  Mixons.  Many  of  them  also  bore  the  diseased 
shoots.  This  orchard  was  then  twenty-one  years  old.  According  to 
Fred.  T.  Harrington,  the  tenant,  the  disease  had  been  in  the  orchard 
only  five  or  six  years,  appearing  the  first  year  in  a  few  trees  only.  In 
other  words,  the  orchard  was  perfectly  healthy  during  the  first  fifteen 
years  of  its  existence. 

In  1887,  on  the  farm  of  J.  J.  Eosa,  near  Milford,  Del.,  1  saw  a  num- 
ber of  peach  trees  about  thirty  years  old.  They  were  of  great  size, 
the  largest  having  a  girth  of  42  inches  at  li  feet  from  the  earth.  All 
but  two  were  healthy.  Tliese  two  bore  premature  peaches  in  18S7  for 
the  first  time,  and  at  the  date  of  my  visit  were  well  provided  with  the 
characteristic  diseased  shoots. 

It  seems  almost  impossible  to  believe  that  trees,  which  are  the  i:)icture 
of  health  when  young,  and  which  continue  to  appear  vigorous  for  three 
or  four  years,  contain  within  themselves,  in  a  dormant  state,  all  the 
elements  of  disease,  yet  such  is  the  case,  if  the  yellows  is  propagated 
only  by  diseased  stocks  and  buds.  For  the  sake  of  argument,  in  the 
absence  of  direct  proof  to  the  contrary,  it  may  be  admitted  that  trees 
which  premature  their  first  fruit  have  in  every  instance  been  diseased 
from  the  beginning,  no  matter  how  healthy  they  appeared  to  be.  But 
what  shall  we  say  of  trees  w^hich  succumb  after  having  borne  several 
crops  of  healthy  peaches '?  It  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  such  trees 
contracted  the  disease  in  the  nursery.  Finally,  it  passes  the  bounds 
of  probability  that  a  germ  or  anything  of  kindred  nature  should  re- 
main dormant  in  a  tree  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  that  tree  meanwhile  be- 
ing taxed  to  its  utmost  in  the  production  of  fruit,  and  often  exhausted 
and  injured  by  over-production. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  in  orchards  over  five  years  old 
the  disease  is  due  to  some  unknown  local  influence,  and  not  to  anything 


158  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

on  or  in  the  trees  when  procured  from  the  nursery.  I  am  the  more  in- 
clined to  this  view  from  the  fact  that  when  symptoms  of  yellows  are 
once  manifest  in  any  branch  the  whole  tree  becomes  involved  in  a  com- 
paratively short  time;  i.  e.  within  one  or  two  years.  In  other  words, 
the  disease  is  virulent,  and  does  not  remain  dormant  in  one  branch  very 
long  after  it  has  appeared  in  another. 

MECHANICAL  OR  Vri'AL  INJURIES. 

Injuries  by  men  or  quadrupeds. — A  belief,  current  in  some  parts 
of  the  country,  attributes  yellows  to  any  severe  injury  of  trunk  or  roots, 
such  as  might  be  made  by  careless  cultiv-ation,  or  by  rabbits,  mice,  etc. 
This  belief  arose,  no  doubt,  from  confounding  a  yellow  appearance  of 
the  foliage  with  genuine  yellows.  These  injuries  are  all  on  a  par  with 
those  inflicted  by  the  peach  tree  borer  {^geria  exitiosa,  Say),  and  what 
I  shall  say  about  the  latter  will  apply  to  these  also. 

Injury  by  borers. — The  VdrviG  of  JEgeria  devour  the  imier  bark 
of  the  peach,  usually  at  or  just  beneath  the  earth's  surfiice,  often  entirely 
girdling  the  tree.  This  insect  is  much  more  common  than  Scglytm, 
which  I  have  not  observed  upon  healthy  trees,  and  is  the  only  one  worth 
mentioning  in  this  connection. 

Borers  are  so  common  and  so  destructive  to  the  peach  tree,  and  have 
sofrequently  been  accused  of  causing  yellows,  that,  while  I  had  no  faith 
whatever,  I  nevertheless  gave  particular  attention  to  this  theory  both 
in  1887  and  1888.  My  observations  show  clearly  that  while  they  kill 
or  seriously  injure  many  trees,  especially  on  sandy  soil,  they  have 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  yellows.  Some  of  my  reasons  for  this 
conclusion  are  as  follows  : 

(1)  Borers  have  been  prevalent  for  many  years,  and  often  very  de- 
structive in  localities  where  yellows  has  never  appeared ;  e./;.,  Washtenaw 
County,  Mich. ;  Accomac  County,  Va. ;  Sussex  County,  Del. 

(2)  Borers  are  much  more  prevalent  on  sandy  soil  than  on  heavy 
loam  or  clay.  But  yellows  is  equally  destructive  on  the  latter.  I  ob- 
served this  fact  repeatedly  in  Maryland  and  Delaware.  Those  owning 
orchards  on  sand  are  obliged  to  search  for  borers  once  or  twice  each 
year.  Those  whose  orchards  are  on  clay  often  neglect  to  ''worm"  their 
trees  for  several  years  together  without  evil  results. 

(3)  In  li;87,  in  orchard  No.  G  of  this  report,  I  found  the  collars  and 
crowns  of  many  trees  had  never  been  injured  in  the  least  either  by 
borers  or  by  bruises  of  any  sort;  yet  these  trees  were  suffering  from 
yellows.  The  earth  had  been  dug  away  from  about  one  thousand  trunks 
on  the  east  side  of  the  orchard,  preparatory  to  the  annual  search  for 
borers,  but  so  few  were  found,  that  it  was  not  thought  worth  while  to 
examine  further.  Almost  the  only  injuries  I  saw  were  small  hacks  made 
in  removing  the  earth.  Moreover,  the  foliage  of  the  orchard  nowhere 
gave  any  evidence  of  borers,  and  I  was  informed  that  this  insect  had 
never  been  troublesome.     Notwithstanding  this  fact,  three  hundred  and 


YELLOWS  AND  BORERS.  159 

fourteen  trees  became  diseased  by  yellows  ia  1887,  and  an  additional 
three  buudred  in  1888. 

(4)  In  1887,  in  orchard  No.  7  of  this  report,  I  very  carefully  examined 
the  collar  and  trunk  roots  of  seventeen  trees  which  were  suffering  from 
yellows.  Six  had  been  severely  injured,  by  borers  or  bruises;  nine  had 
been  slightly  injured;  and  two  had  never  received  bark  injuries  of  any 
sort.  Healthy  trees  in  the  same  orchard  were  also  found  to  be  injured 
by  borers  and  bruises;  while  those  diseased  by  yellows  did  not  seem 
to  be  affected  proportionately  to  the  extent  of  the  iujury. 

(5)  According  to  Mr.  William  Hudson,  orchard  IN o.  8  of  this  report 
was  never  much  injured  by  borers.^  For  its  present  condition  see 
Table  VI  and  Photo.  XI. 

(G)  In  1887,  in  orchard  No.  12  of  this  report,  I  found  seven  trees  unmis- 
takably diseased  by  yellows  which  had  no  borers  aud  never  had  any, 
and  had  never  received  injuries  of  any  sort  on  the  trunk,  collar,  or 

trunk-roots. 

(7)  In  18S7,  in  the  southwest  corner  of  orchard  No.  14  of  this  report,  six 
healthy  aud  six  diseased  trees  (numbered  1  to  12  on  Map  IV)  were  very 
carefully  examined  for  borers  and  bruises.  Four  of  the  diseased  trees 
were  entirely  free;  two  were  slightly  injured.  Four  of  the  healthy  trees 
were  entirely  free;  two  were  slightly  injured.  In  1888,  tliree  of  the  six 
healthy  trees  became  diseased.  These  were  three  of  the  four  trees  which 
had  never  been  injured.  The  entire  orchard  appeared  to  be  very  free 
from  injury  by  borers.  The  trees  were  "  wormed"  in  August,  1884, 1885, 
and  1 8SG,  but  not  many  borers  were  found.  None  have  been  allowed  to 
remain  in  the  trees. 

(8)  The  two  old  orchards  of  Charles  Wright,  Seaford,  Del.,  have  suf- 
fered severely  from  borers  for  years,  but  yellows  has  never  appeared. 
He  now  examines  his  trees  twice  a  year,  and  says  he  would  lose  them 
if  he  did  not.    This  year  out  of  some  trees  he  took  as  many  as  twenty 

borers. 

At  E.  B.  Emory's,  in  Spaniards'  Neck,  Queen  Anne  County,  Md.,  a 
regiou  yet  almost  entirely  free  from  yellows,  I  saw  a  few  trees  which 
might  throw  doubt  on  the  relation  of  borers  to  yellows  were  it  not  for 
the  facts  already  cited. 

In  a  block  of  five  hundred  trees,  first  examined  in  1887,  I  found  two 
or  three  hundred  which  were  more  or  less  dwarfed  and  sickly  looking. 
Several  of  these  trees  were  suspicious,  but  I  saw  no  premature  peaches, 
and  could  not  say  positively  that  any  were  suffering  from  yellows.  The 
remainder  of  the  block  looked  healthy,  as  did  all  the  rest  of  the  or- 
chard, and  all  the  other  orchards  on  that  farm  and  on  all  the  farms  in 
the  Neck.  Some  of  the  trees  had  suffered  from  borers,  but  after  examin- 
ing sixty  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  only  a  very  small  percentage  had 
been  seriously  injured.  In  forty-two  I  found  no  indications  of  borers; 
but  in  this  case  my  examination  was  not  exhaustive,  and  I  may  have 
1  Orchards  No.  2  ami  10  have  been  coasiderably  iujured  by  borers. 


160  SPECIAL   REPORT    ON   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

overlooked  some.  These  trees  may  also  have  suffered  from  root  aphides, 
as  they  came  from  a  region  where  the  nurseries  were  badly  injured  by 
this  iusect  some  years  ago.  Anyway  this  block,  in  the  middle  of  an 
otherwise  healthy  orchard,  presented  a  very  striking  contrast.  The  trees 
on  each  side  were  of  the  same  age,  bwt  procured  from  other  localities. 

In  the  fall  of  1887  or  spring  of  1888,  thirty  or  more  of  the  worst  of 
these  trees  were  cut  back  so  that  nothing  remained  save  the  trunk  and 
the  stubs  of  the  main  limbs.  When  examined  in  the  summer  of  1888, 
I  found  some  healthy j  some  dead;  and  some  diseased  in  the  following- 
way:  The  stubs  of  the  limbs  of  twelve  trees  were  covered  with  a  pale 
yellowish-green  much  branched  dwarfed  growth,  identical  with  that 
shown  in  Photo.  VI,  but  more  tufted  and  compact.  Six  of  the  most 
badly  affected  trees  were  dug  out  and  examined  very  carefully.  They 
were  all  much  dwarfed,  the  trunks  at  the  collar  being  only  about  3 
inches  in  diameter,  although  four  years  old  (five  years  from  bud).  I 
«aw  no  root  aphides,  but  each  of  these  six  trees  was  very  badlj-  infested 
by  borers.  From  one  trunk  I  removed  seveu,  and  from  none  did  I  take 
less  than  two.  Three  of  the  trees  were  entirely  girdled;  two  were  very 
nearly  girdled;  and  the  other  had  sound  bark  on  less  than  one- third  of 
its  trunk-circumference  at  the  collar. 

This  is  the  only  instance  discovered  where  a  growth  strikingly  like 
yellows,  if  not  identically  the  same,  seemed  to  be  closely  associated 
with  borers.  The  evidence  in  this  case  is  of  course  not  conclusive.  I 
had  my  doubts  about  some  of  these  trees  in  1887,  and  revisited  the 
orchard  to  settle  them.  Moreover,  in  1888,  in  this  block  I  found  un- 
doubted yellows  in  one  tree,  a  small  ^Mountain  Kose  replant  of  1887,  or 
possibly  188G.  This  bore  spotted  premature  peaches  but  healthy  spring 
foliage  and  no  diseased  shoots.  I  also  saw  yellows  in  another  young 
orchard  in  that  vicinity  which  I  know  to  have  been  free  in  1887. 

Injuries  by  root  aphides. — An  aphis  corresponding  nearly  to 
Koch's  figures  and  description  of  Aphis  Chrysantliemiis  frequently  found 
upon  the  roots  of  peach  trees,  especially  in  New  Jersey,  Maryland,  and 
Delaware.  It  is  I  think  identical  with  a  form  occurring  upon  the  shoots 
and  young  folJiige.  This,  however,  I  have  found  only  twice  in  twoyears, 
and  then  but  sparingly,  and  not  in  the  perfect  state.  No  one  appears 
to  have  collected  the  winged  iusect,  and  ifc  is  possible  it  may  prove  a 
distinct  species. 

This  insect  has  been  known  to  New  Jersey  peach-growers  more  than 
fifty  years,  and  has  been  on  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  peninsula 
fully  as  long.  It  was  at  Chestertown,  Md.,  in  1800,^  and  destroyed 
thousands  of  trees  in  various  parts  of  Kent  County  between  that  date 
and  1875. 

James  S.  Harris,  of  Still  Pond,  states  that  he  has  been  familiar  with 
this  insect  for  many  years,  and  until  recently  has  lost  more  trees  by  it 
than  by  yellows. 

1  The  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1875,  p.  100. 


YELLOWS    AND    ROOT-APHIDES.  161 

At  Ohestertown  in  tbe  orchard  of  Colonel  Wilkins  it  was  particularly 
destructive  in  1874  and  1875.  In  1875  in  an  orchard  of  15,000  Early 
Beatrice  hardly  300  of  the  original  trees  remained,  there  having  been 
successive  plantings  to  the  number  of  nearly  20,000  on  account  of  in- 
jury by  aphides.' 

This  aphis  was  also  very  abundant  at  Denton,  Md.,in  1874  and  1875'' 
and  at  Bridgeville,  Del.,  about  the  same  time.  ^  Thousands  of  young 
trees  were  killed  or  badly  injured.  Probably  it  was  destructive  in  many 
other  parts  of  the  Peninsula  at  this  time.  * 

This  aphis  has  also  proved  a  great  pest  to  orchards  and  nurseries  in 
various  parts  of  New  Jersey.^  But  I  have  heard  no  complaint  from 
western  l!^ew  York  or  Michigan. 

As  already  noted  in  Part  II,  stunting  is  one  of  the  marked  symptoms 
of  the  presence  of  this  apHis.  If  trees  are  much  dwarfed,  and  there  are 
no  injuries  by  borers,  aphides  are  almost  certain  to  be  found  upon  the 
roots.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  find  trees  which  are  only  one-half  or  one- 
third  the  size  of  their  fellows  solely  because  their  roots  are  infested  by 
this  aphis.  Sometimes  the  second  or  even  the  third  year  after  plant- 
ing they  are  but  little  larger  than  v/hen  set  (see  Photos  XXVI  and 
XXVII).  As  a  rule  young  trees  suffer  more  than  old  ones.  In  some 
instances,  especially  in  trees  which  have  begun  to  bear,  I  have  found 
no  dwarfing,  and  yet  have  discovered  aphides  on  the  roots,  but  only  in 
small  numbers. 

On  the  young  and  tender  roots  they  settle  in  colonies,  heads  together 
and  beaks  thrust  into  the  soft  tissue,  from  which  they  abstract  the  juice. 
This  constant  sucking  renders  the  root  extremities  flabby,  and  death 
ensues,  whereupon  the  colony  migrates  to  another  root,  or,  what  is  more 
likely,  is  carried  there  by  the  yellow  ant  {Lasius  claviger,  Rogers),''  which 
is  a  constant  attendant.  This  pumping  of  root  juices,  with  the  conse- 
quent destrnction  of  thousands  of  root  extremities,  acts  somewhat  like 
severe  root  i^runing.  If  too  many  roots  are  removed  the  tree  dies ;  if 
not  so  many,  it  is  dwarfed. 

The  foliage  of  such  trees  is  greatly  dwarfed.  It  also  presents  a  mis- 
erable reddish  or  j'ellowish-greeu  aspect,  with  more  or  less  rolling  and 
curling,  and  purple- spotting  of  the  edges  of  the  leaf.  This  appearance 
is  known  as  'Trenching,'  and  is  quite  constant  on  young  trees,  although 
I  have  known  instances  in  which  it  did  not  occur.  Ordinarily,  from  the 
appearance  of  the  parts  of  the  tree  above  ground,  one  is  very  safe  in 
diagnosing  root  aphidies,  as  I  know  from  repeated  trials. 

When  I  first  began  field-work  I  was  surprised  and  puzzled  by  occa- 

1  The  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1875,  p.  278. 
^Ibid.,  1874,  p.  331 ;  1875,  p.  100. 
3  The  Gardeners'  Monthly,  1880,  p.  206. 

*  The  American  Farmer,  Baltimore,  Md.,  1874,  p.  213;  and  Ibid.,  1875,  p.  25. 
"Peach  Root  Aphis,  Charles  Black,  The  Gardeners'  Monthlij,  Philadelphia,  Pa., 
1884,  p.  303. 

"Kindly  determiued  by  Dr.  Heory  C.  McCook. 

11245-^No.  9— -IX 


162  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

sional  reports  of  "dead  spots"  in  orcliards,  /.  e.,  places  where  peach  trees 
will  not  grow.  Afterwards,  I  examined  many  such  spots  and  satisfied 
myself  that  the  trouble  is  due  to  root  aphides,  at  least  in  Maryland  and 
Delaware.  I  have  seen  spots  of  soil,  not  noticeably  different  from  the 
rest  of  the  orchard,  on  which  the  second  and  even  the  third  planting 
languished  and  finally  died  with  symptoms  such  as  I  have  detailed. 
This  languishing  is  frequently  confounded  with  yellows,  but  it  is  en- 
tirely different.  Sometimes  by  repeated  trials  healtby  trees  have  been 
grown  in  such  places. 

I  believe  the  aphides  are  retained  in  such  spots  or  transjiorted  to  other 
localities  by  the  yellow  ant  which  I  have  found  constantly  associated 
with  it,  and  which  appears  to  be  the  only  species  taking  any  interest 
in  this  aphis.  I  have  frequently  found  the  eggs,  larvre,  and  pup«  of 
this  ant  in  sandy  soil  under  peach  trees ;  and  have  seen  the  ants  take 
the  aphides  very  tenderly  in  their  jaws  and  remove  them  to  places  of 
safety.  In  one  instance,  while  digging  in  orchard  IS^o.  IG,  I  placed  a 
small  root  containing  a  colony  of  about  thirty  aphides  on  the  ground  at 
some  distance  from  the  tree,  intending  to  put  them  into  alcohol.  Before 
I  discovered  what  they  were  doing,  yellow  ants  had  carried  away  all  but 
four  or  five,  and  were  still  carrying.  I  saw  one  ant  come  and  go  three 
times,  each  time  taking  away  an  aphis  in  its  jaws,  and  each  time  very 
tenderly.  Undoubtedly  this  aphis  is  carried  from  root  to  root  and  tree 
to  tree  by  these  yellow  ants. 

What  makes  this  subject  interesting  in  connection  with  peach  yel- 
lows is  the  theory  that  that  disease  is  due  to  the  depredations  of  this 
insect.  In  view  of  the  ravages  of  Phylloxera  in  vineyards,  it  is  certainly 
an  attractive  theory,  and  one  to  which  I  have  given  much  thought. 

Some  time  after  I  began  my  field  work,  I  found  them  in  a  number  of 
orchards  on  roots  of  trees  suffering  from  yellows.  At  first  I  was  much 
peri^lexed,  thinking  I  might  have  overlooked  their  presence  on  many 
roots  previously  examined.  This  discovery  led  me  to  make  many  ex- 
haustive and  very  tedious  underground  examination,  in  some  cases  50 
to  75  cubic  feet  of  earth  being  turned  over  under  a  single  tree,  all  the 
roots  and  rootlets  therein  being  examined  very  minutely,  often  with 
a  triplet.  These  examinations  somewhat  restored  my  confidence  in 
previous  work.  In  a  number  of  orchards  I  found  trees  in  various 
stages  of  yellows,  on  the  roots  of  which  the  most  patient  and  prolonged 
search  revealed  no  aphides.  The  yellow  ants  were  also  absent  from 
the  soil.  This,  however,  is  not  conclusive,  for  it  is  well  known  that 
the  Phylloxera  generally  abandons  the  roots  of  badly  diseased  vines 
for  healthy  ones,  and  the  same  might  be  true  of  this  aj^his.  Although 
the  roots  gave  no  positive  indication  of  the  previous  presence  of  these 
insects,  I  could  not  deny  that  they  might  at  some  time  have  been  pres- 
ent and  have  deserted  these  roots  for  those  of  other  trees,  which  would 
in  turn  fall  a  prey  to  yellows,  to  be  in  turn  deserted.  While  this  could 
not  be  denied  it  nevertheless  seemed  improbable,  because  on  the  roots 
of  large  trees  I  never  in  any  instance  found  them  in  numbers  sufficient 


YELLOWS  AND  EOOT  APHIDES.  163 

tc  do  mucli  injury.  Only  one  experiment  looking  toward  the  settlement 
of  this  point  was  undertaken.  In  18S7,  in  the  southwest  part  of  orchard 
^0. 14  of  this  report,  the  roots  of  twelve  trees,  numbered  1  to  12  on  Map 
IV,  were  very  systematically  examined,  an  entire  day  being  spent  in  the 
digging  Six  of  these  trees  had  become  diseased  by  yellows  in  1887, 
and  six  were  entirely  healthy.  I  found  aphides  in  small  numbers  on  a 
few  of  the  roots  of  1,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  9,  10,  and  12.  In  the  earth  under  the 
other  trees  (two  diseased  and  one  healthy)  I  saw  no  yellow  ants,  and 
found  no  aphides  on  their  roots.  In  August,  1888,  these  trees  were  re- 
examined ;  4,  8,  and  9  had  become  diseased,  while  5,  6,  and  7  continued 
to  be  healthy  ;  i.  e.,  No.  8,  on  which  no  aphides  were  found  in  August, 
1887,  had  become  disea,sed,  and  Nos.  5,  6,  and  7,  on  which  they  Avere 
found,  had  not  become  diseased.  So  far  as  it  goes,  this  result  is  opposed 
to  the  aphis  theory. 

A  much  stronger  objection  is  the  well-established  fact  that  trees 
whose  roots  have  been  seriously  infested  with  aphides  often  recover  or 
linger  on  for  years,  with  none  of  the  symptoms  of  yellows.  Young  trees 
the  first  or  second  year  out  from  the  nursery  often  suffer  severely  from 
this  root  aphis  and  afterwards  recover,  making  healthy  orchards.  I 
have  seen  a  number  of  such  orchards. 

Another  serious  objection  is  that  at  Denton,  Caroline  County,  Md., 
and  at  Bridgeville,  Sussex  County,  Del.,  this  root  aphis  has  been  more 
or  less  destructive  since  1870,  at  times  very  destructive,  while  so  far  as 
known  no  trouble  from  yellows  lias  ever  been  experienced  at  either 
place,  both  localities  now  being  free,  or  nearly  free,  from  that  disease. 
This  insect  has  also  seriously  injured  trees  at  Seaford,  Del.,  in  the 
orchards  of  Colonel  Martin,  without  having  caused  yellows.  Some  of 
the  trees  recovered,  others  died. 

One  point  remains  to  be  discussed — that  is,  whether  under  any  circum- 
stances the  root  aphis  may  give  rise  to  symptoms  resembling  yellows. 
The  symptoms  already  detailed  are  the  common  ones.  I  have  heard  it 
asserted  that  the  aphis  causes  peaches  to  ripen  prematurely,  and  the 
well-known  fact  that  such  ripening  may  be  brought  about  by  severe 
root-pruning  1  lends  some  countenance  to  the  belief.  My  examinations, 
however,  developed  no  proofs.  I  have  seen  green,  healthy  peaches  on 
trees  badly  infested  by  root  nphides,  and  when  I  have  found  this  insect 
on  the  roots  of  trees  bearing  premature  peaches  it  has  never  been  under 
such  circumstances  as  to  render  it  certain,  or  even  probable,  that  it  was 
the  real  cause  of  the  disease.  The  only  point  about  which  I  have 
any  doubt  is  whether  such  growths  as  that  shown  in  Photo.  VI  can 
ever  result  from  attacks  of  the  aphis.  This  photograph  was  made  in 
autumn  from  a  tree  set  in  spring,  and  the  top  shown  is  the  only  growth 
it  made  during  the  entire  season.  The  roots  were  infested  by  this 
aphis,  and  seemingly  to  an  extent  fully  sufficient  to  cause  the  symptoms 
observed.    The  question  is,  Were  they  the  cause  of  the  diseased  top,  or 

'  Spp  Dr.  Hull's  accoimt  in  The  Prairie  Fanner.  Quoted  in  The  Cultivator  and 
CoxinUij  Gentleman,  1671,  p.  678. 


164  SPECIAL    KEPOKT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

was  the  tree  suffering  from  two  distinct  evils  ?  In  orchard  No.  11  of  this 
report  (same  farm)  all  the  replants  of  1887  showed  the  same  diseased  ap- 
pearance as  this  tree,  and  in  four  out  of  five  trees  which  were  examined 
I  found  root  aphides  in  considerable  numbers,  and  had  reason  to  think 
that  they  had  been  present  on  the  roots  of  the  other  tree.  These  insects 
were  also  found  upon  the  roots  of  older  trees  in  the  same  orchard. 

In  an  orchard  owned  by  John  Stokes,  Still  Pond,  Md.,  and  contain- 
ing trees  diseased  by  yellows,  I  also  saw  two  resets  of  1887,  with  tops 
of  identical  appearance.  On  the  roots  of  one  I  found  aphides,  and  on 
the  roots  of  the  other  some  indications  of  their  former  presence. 

On  the  other  hand,  on  the  farm  of  Henry  Krusen,  Still  Pond,  Md., 
out  of  two  thousand  trees  set  in  1887,  I  saw  about  thirty  that  had  the 
same  appearance.  Eight  of  the  worst  ones  were  examined  very  care- 
fully for  aphides  and  the  yellow  ants,  but  neither  were  found.  Two  of 
the  trees  had  been  injured  by  borers,  but  the  rest  were  free  from  bark 
injury. 

The  only  difference  which  I  could  detect  between  the  wiry,  branched, 
depauperate  growth  on  these  trees  and  that  found  on  robust  older  trees, 
bearing  premature  peaches,  was  in  the  lesser  tendency  toward  autumn 
growth,  and  T  can  not  say  that  even  this  is  a  constant  difference.  When 
placed  side  by  side  with  growths  from  older  trees,  it  was  not  always 
easy  to  distinguish  one  from  the  other.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that 
where  aphides  were  on  the  roots  the  unfortunate  trees  were  suffering 
from  two  distinct  evils ;  but  some  additional  observations  ought  to  be 
made.i 

'  Buckton  reduces  A.  chrysanihemi  to  A.  cardui,  Linn.,  but  his  description  of  that 
species  does  not  correspond  to  this  insect. 

The  underground  form  of  this  insect  is  very  broadly  ovate,  almost  heart-shaped; 
uniformly  dark  brown  or  black,  and  very  smooth  and  shining  on  the  back,  as  if 
lacquered. 

The  antennae  are  five  or  six  jointed,  brownish,  darker  toward  the  tips,  the  base  of 
the  distal  joiut  being  obliquely  enlarged.  Head  of  usual  form ;  thorax  short;  abdo- 
men broad  and  very  shiny  above,  not  distinctly  mottled  or  banded  in  the  living  in- 
sect, smooth  except  the  apex  of  the  cauda,  which  is  provided  with  a  few  short 
bristles.  The  first  and  last  three  abdominal  segments  are  visible  on  the  back,  the 
others  are  smoothed  out  and  united  into  a  shining  plate.  The  segments  are  more 
clearly  visible  below.  Cauda  blunt  and  extremely  short,  except  in  alcoholic  speci- 
mens. Cornicles  black,  blunt,  slightly  constricted  below  the  apex,  about  four  times 
as  long  as  broad.  Legs  yellow  or  weak  coffee-color,  with  black  markings ;  smooth 
except  the  tibite,  which  are  provided  with  a  few  scattering  bristles.  The  front  pair 
of  legs  are  entirely  yellow  except  the  tip  of  the  tibiae,  the  tarsi,  and  the  claws.  In 
the  hinder  pairs  the  femora  are  yellow,  shading  into  black  at  the  distal  end  ;  the 
tibiae  are  also  yellow,  shading  into  black  at  the  distal  end  ;  tarsi  and  claws  black. 

The  average  measurements  of  the  mature  apterous  underground  female  are  as 

follows : 

Mm. 

Length 1.67 

Breadth 1.14 

Beak 50 

Antenna 70 

Cornicles 23 

Cauda  (alcoholic  specimens) 10 

The  immature  insects  are  weak  cofiee-color. 


YELLOWS    AND    FUNGL  165 

Injuries  by  fungi. — The  peacb,  like  other  plants,  is  subject  to  the 
attacks  of  parasitic  fiiugi;  but  whether  yellows  is  caused  by  a  fungus 
or  a  bacterium  remains  to  be  determined.  It  certainly  does  not  arise 
from  any  easily  distinguishable  cause  of  this  kind. 

In  the  regions  affected  by  peach  yellows,  I  have  observed  the  follow- 
ing species  of  fungi  on  the  parts  above  ground : 

Taphrina  deformans,  Tul.,  on  leaves  and  young  shoots,  producing  the 
distortion  and  enlargement  known  as  "curl;"  Sphaerotheca  panosa,  L6v., 
a  white  felt-like  mildew  on  leaves  and  young  shoots,  causing  atrophy  and 
death;  Puccima  Prunispinosa',  P.,  producing  rust-spots  and  causing 
the  premature  fall  of  the  leaves ;  OiMum  fructigenum,  Kze.  and  Schw., 
causing  "rot"  in  the  fruit  and  "blight"  in  the  twigs;  Cladosporiiim  car- 
2)ophi/Uum,  V.  Thiim.,  a  surface-growing  fungus  on  leaves  and  fruit,  pro- 
ducing roundish  black  spots,  which  are  especially  frequent  on  Smock 
and  other  late  peaches  (see  Plate  XXXII) ;  Cercospora  Persiae,  Sacc,  pro- 
ducing faint  frosted  patches  on  the  under  surface  of  the  leaves,  and  indis- 
tinct yellow  spoils  above;  Cercospora  (?),  producing  numerous  leaf-spots 
having  a  dead  center  and  a  more  or  less  brightly  colored  rim  of  red  or 
purple;^  Gapnodium  elongatum,  B.  and  Desm.,  an  imperfect  form,  prob- 
ably referable  to  this  species,  producing  black  patches  on  the  epider- 
mis, and  occurring  also  in  the  gum ;  Pohjporus  versicolor,  Fr.,  on  trunk 
and  limbs,  principally  or  wholly  on  dead  or^lying  wood,  and  not  re- 
stricted to  trees  suffering  from  yellows,  or  even  to  the  peach. 

Some  of  these  fungi  are  genuine  parasites ;  others  are  what  De  Bary 
styles  facultative  parasites ;  and  others  are  pure  saprophytes.  Xone  of 
them  stand  in  any  causal  relation  to  yellows,  but  all  are  likely  to  be  found 
w^herever  the  peach  is  grown  in  the  United  States.  Those  which  show 
any  special  preference  for  diseased  trees — e.  g.,  Cercospora  (f) — are  not 
contiiled  to  trees  suffering  from  yellows,  but  occur  equally  on  all  trees  of 
low  vitality,  and  are  clearly  a  consequence  of  impaired  vitality  rather 
than  a  cause. 

On  the  parts  underground,  I  have  found  no  species  of  Agaricus,  and 
have  almost  never  observed  any  growing  in  orchards. 

Altogether,  I  have  more  or  less  fully  examined  the  root  system  of 
fifty-two  good-sized  trees,  all  of  which  were  unquestionably  diseased  by 
yellows.  In  every  instance  the  main  roots,  and  all  their  ramifications 
down  to  those  smaller  than  a  goose  quill,  were  perfectly  sound.  The 
bark  was  bright-colored  and  sound  throughout,  and  the  wood  was  free 
from  black  spots,  rottenness,  or  signs  of  decay.  Certainly  it  was  not 
disorganized  by  mycelial  threads  of  any  sort,  nor  were  these  commonly 
present  on  the  surface  of  the  smooth  bark.     My  own  observations  agree 

'  Very  couimou  on  diseased  trees  (see  Plate  VI,  and  Nos.  2  aud  3  of  Plate  XXXVII), 
but  not  restricted  to  them.  Often  the  tissue  disappears  from  the  center  of  the  spot, 
leaving  a  hole.  The  fungus  fruits  late  in  autumn, on  both  surfaces  of  the  leaf,  throw- 
ing up  many  minute  tufts  of  dark  brown  conidiophores,  which  bear  oval  or  oblong 
olivaceous  septate  spores. 


166  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

in  this  respect  with  the  greater  part  of  those  heretofore  reported.  All 
the  larger  roots  are  healthy. 

I  have,  however,  sometimes  observed  a  delicate  cobweb  fungus  on 
the  smaller  roots  and  on  the  rootlets  of  diseased  trees,  and  have  in 
almost  every  instance  found  a  large  portion  of  these  rootlets  dry  and 
dead,  even  where  no  fungus  could  be  detected  by  the  naked  eye 
or  by  the  use  of  a  triplet.  If  peach  yellows  is  in  auy  sense  a  root  dis- 
ease, I  predict  it  will  be  found  connected  in  some  way  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  feeding  fibers  or  root  hairs  of  the  tree.  However,  the  dead 
rootlets  may  be  a  consequence  of  the  disease  rather  than  a  cause,  and 
such  a  view  seems  more  in  harmony  with  the  results  of  some  of  the 
inoculations.  I  do  not  feel  like  pronouncing  very  decidedly  on  the 
matter  until  the  inoculated  trees  have  stood  another  year,  and  until  I 
have  made  the  most  prolonged  and  painstaking  underground  explora- 
tions, accompanied  by  careful  microscopic  examinations.  An  additional 
season  in  the  field  and  a  year  of  laboratory  work  would  throw  much 
light  on  the  question.  Concerning  the  supposed  relation  of  bacteria 
to  this  disease,  not  enough  microscopic  examinations  or  culture  experi- 
ments have  been  made  to  venture  any  conclusion.  On  or  in  the  dis- 
eased tissues  I  have  occasionally  observed  a  bacillus  much  resembling 
that  found  by  Prof.  T.  J.  BurrilP  and  Dr.  Manley  Miles  j^  but  he  would 
be  a  very  rash  man  who,  on  the  strength  of  the  occasional  and  per- 
haps entirely  accidental  presence  of  these  all-abounding  micro-organ- 
isms, should  assert  their  causal  connection  with  this  disease.  Opinions 
of  any  value  can  not  be  given  until  after  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  dis- 
eased tissues.  No  one  has  yet  undertaken  this,  and  no  one  is  now  com- 
petent to  speak  with  authority. 

The  rapid  spread  of  the  disease  in  certain  years,  together  with  vari- 
ous other  facts  in  its  history,  lead  me  to  believe  that  it  is  due  to  a  para- 
site of  some  sort.  I  have  observed  much  that  is  very  suggestive,  and 
nothing  that  is  inconsistent  with  such  a  belief.  Even  the  fact  that  the 
disease  has  existed  in  some  localities  for  many  years  without  becoming 
widely  destructive  is  not  opposed  to  this  view,  but  could  be  paralleled 
by  many  references  to  animal  and  plant  diseases  now  well  known  to  be 
of  parasitic  origin.  Certain  external  or  internal  conditions  of  the  host 
plant,  or  animal,  or  peculiarities  of  locality,  not  yet  well  understood,  are 
almost  always  necessary  to  the  rapid  dissemination  of  a  parasitic  dis- 
ease. If  these  are  wanting,  the  disease  will  be  confined  to  limited  areas 
or  to  isolated  cases. 

If  yellows  is  due  to  some  root  fungus  or  other  underground  parasite, 
it  seems  to  me  it  could  be  entirely  prevented  by  budding  the  peach  upon 
the  roots  of  trees  not  subject  to  this  disease,  e.  g.^  the  plum.    If,  on  the 

^Science,  18d0,  p.  162;  Tr.  III.  State  Hort.  Soc,  1880,  p.  165;  Ann.  Eept.  of  the  Sec'y 
of  the  Mich.  State  Hort.  Soc,  1880,  p.  383;  Amencan  Xaturalist,  1S81,  p.  531 ;  Ann.  Bept. 
of  the  Sec'y  of  the  Mich.  State  Hort.  Soc,  1881,  p.  133;  Tr.  III.  State  Hort.  Soc,  1883, 
p.  46. 

*  Conversatious,  suniiner  of  1885  and  spring  of  1888. 


PEACHES  ON  PLUM  STOCKS.  167 

contrary,  it  is  due  to  some  parasite  living  aboveground  and  attacking 
the  tree  tbrougli  its  branclies,  trunk,  foliage,  or  flowers,  then  trees 
budded  on  plum  roots  should  be  as  much  subject  to  it  as  any  others. 

I  have  seen  some  statements  to  the  effect  that  budding  on  plum  stocks 
is  no  protection  against  yellowsj  but,  having  found  mauy  errors  in  the 
literature  of  yellows,  I  am  inclined  to  take  all  statements  with  a  grain 
of  allowance.  The  first  person  to  make  this  statement  appears  to  have 
been  William  Prince  {loc.  cit.).  He  declares  that  while  peach  trees 
budded  on  plum  and  almond  are  less  aifected  by  borers,  they  are  equally 
subject  to  yellows. 

The  most  explicit  statement  is  that  made  by  Noyes  Darling.  He  says 
that  in  1842  Beniamin  Sillmau,  jr.,  of  i^ew  Haven,  ''procured  from  Liver- 
pool a  considerable  number  of  young  peach  and  nectarine  trees  hudded 
on  plum  stocks.  Some  of  them  were  put  for  standards,  and  others  walled 
upon  a  board  fence.  There  had  been  no  peach  trees  for  twenty  years 
on  the  ground  where  these  were  planted.  They  grew  well  the  first  sea- 
son and  appeared  in  perfect  health.  The  second  season  some  of  the  peach 
trees  showed  symptoms  of  yellows,  and  died  the  third  season  At  the 
present  time  [four  years  after  they  were  set]  no  one  of  the  trees,  either 
nectarine  or  peach,  is  free  from  disease.  In  the  garden  adjoining  that 
of  Mr.  Sillman  there  were  diseased  trees  standing  at  the  time  the  im- 
ported trees  were  planted  out."  ^ 

I  believe  Mr.  Darling's  own  observations  to  be  perfectly  trustworthy. 
The  only  points  here  in  doubt  would  appear  to  be  (1)  the  nature  of  the 
inserted  buds,  presumably  unexceptional,  because  from  England,  where 
yellows  is  said  to  be  unknown  ;  and  (2)  the  nature  of  the  stocks,  pre- 
sumably plum,  as  stated,  from  the  fact  that  in  England  the  i)each  is 
very  commonly  budded  on  the  i)lum. 

Charles  Downing  also  states'^  that  many  years  ago  one  of  his  friends 
imported  100  peach  trees  from  France.  "In  two  years  one-third  had 
the  yellows,  and  the  remainder  died  with  it  the  third  or  fourth  year." 
These  trees  were  probably  on  plum  stocks,  but  no  date  is  given  and  no 
name,  and  it  is  possible  that  Mr.  Downing  had  in  mind  the  trees  im- 
ported by  Mr.  Sillman. 

I  have  found  one  or  two  additional  references  to  the  occurrence  of 
yellows  in  peaches  budded  on  plum  stocks.  The  most  important  is  a 
statement  in  The  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Michigan  State 
Pomological  Society,  1874,  page  26,  to  the  effect  that  "  in  the  orchard 
of  John  T.  Edwards  diseased  peach  trees  grafted  on  plum  stalks  were 
entirely  destroyed  by  the  yellows  without  injuring  the  root  at  all;  below 
the  graft  the  live  healthy  root  sent  out  strong  plum  stalks."  I  have 
tried  to  discover  Mi.  Edwards  and  hunt  down  this  statement,  but  have 
not  been  able  to  do  so. 

An  eastern  Maryland  correspondent  of  The  American  Farmer,  1875, 

1  The  Cultivator,  184G,  p.  141. 
^  Ann.  Be^ort  oj  the  Sec'y  of  the  Mich.  State  Pom.  Soc,  1873,  p.  38. 


168  SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS 

page  25,  also  states  that  plums,  when  grafted  ou  peach  roots,  remain 
free  from  disease,  although  standing  within  a  foot  of  peach  trees  which 
die  of  yellows. 

Peach  trees  where  I  have  traveled  are  budded  almost  exclusively  upon 
peach  stocks,  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  confirm  any  of  these  state- 
ments. One  thousaud  plum  stocks  have,  however,  been  inoculated  with 
healthy  peach  buds  in  a  district  now  free  from  yellows,  and  these  will 
be  set  in  some  of  the  badly-diseased  orchards  in  Maryland  and  Dela- 
ware and  the  results  carefully  recorded.  The  trees  from  which  the  buds 
were  taken  have  also  been  marked,  and  will  be  kept  under  observation 
for  a  number  of  jears,  so  that  if  any  of  them  develop  yellows  this  fact 
may  be  recorded  and  given  its  due  weight  in  estimating  final  results. 
If  these  trees  from  which  the  scions  were  taken  remain  healthy,  while 
those  budded  on  the  plum  stocks  contract  yellows,  then  underground 
parasites  are  excluded,  and,  if  yellows  is  a  parasitic  disease  at  all,  the 
cause  must  act  through  the  parts  above  ground.  Such  a  result  would 
also  show  that  the  insertion  of  diseased  buds  is  not  a  necessary  fiictor 
in  the  production  of  yellows. 

From  the  fact  that  the  disease  first  appears  in  the  fruit,  and  occa- 
sionally only  in  one  or  two  peaches,  it  has  been  thought  that  the  yellows 
might  be  due  in  some  way  to  diseased  pollen  or  to  bacteria  which  find  an 
entrance  through  the  moist  unprotected  stigma.  On  this  theory  the 
coutagium  is  supposed  to  enter  the  tree  in  the  spring  of  the  same  year 
that  the  disease  appears.  If  this  is  so,  one  ought  to  be  able  to  cut  out 
the  disease,  at  least  in  some  instances.  Practically,  the  cells  and  vessels 
of  the  living  parts  of  the  tree  are  all  closed  cavities;  i.  e.,  there  are  no 
capillary  tubes  large  enough  and  at  the  same  time  long  enough  to 
easily  permit  the  i>assage  of  microorganisms  from  one  part  of  the  tree 
to  another,  if,  indeed,  there  are  any  bacteria  small  enough  to  pass  at 
all  in  this  way  without  destruction  of  the  tissues.  On  such  a  theory  it 
must  therefore  take  considerable  time  for  a  germ  to  penetrate  to  all 
parts  of  the  tree,  since  there  is  no  breaking  down  and  decay  of  tissues 
such  as  occurs  in  pear  blight  and  other  plant  diseases  known  to  be  due 
to  bacteria.  The  only  destruction  of  tissues  I  have  observed  was  due 
to  "gummosis."  In  the  wood  of  diseased  shoots  I  have  found  closed 
gum-cavities,  due  to  the  metamorphosis  of  fibers  and  vessels,  but  I  do 
not  yet  know  how  constant  a  symptom  this  may  be,  or  just  what  relation 
it  may  bear  to  the  disease.  Gummosis  is  known  to  occur  in  plums  and 
cherries,  which  are  not  subject  to  yellows.^ 

The  almost  universal  statement  of  the  books  is  that  yellows  can  not 
be  cut  out  of  a  tree,  no  matter  how  slightly  affected.  At  first  I  was  dis- 
posed to  accept  this  statement  as  true  beyond  question  ;  but  having 
heard  counter  statements,  and  having  seen  in  Delaware  one  perfectly 

>  See  Frank,  Die  Eranklieiten  der  Pflanzen,  Breslau,  1880,  p  80,  and  Sorauer,  Hand- 
luch  der  Pflan-cnkrankheitcn,  Berliu,  1883,  2(1  ed.,  Part  I,  p.  871.  Consult  also  some 
notes  on  gummosis  in  the  peach  by  Dr.  J.  C.  Arthur,  Third  Ann.  Re^.  N.  T.  Agri.  Exp. 
Station,  1884,  p.  375. 


EXCISION   EXPERIMENTS.  169 

healthy  tree  from  which  the  disease  is  said  to  have  been  removed  three 
years  ago  by  a  severe  excision,  and  having  seen  in  another  orchard  some 
indication  of  recovery  after  similar  excisions,  I  determined  to  repeat 
this  experiment.  Two  trees  were  selected  in  orchard  No.  12,  eighteen 
in  orchard  No.  14,  and  three  in  the  orchard  from  which  Photo.  X  was 
taken,  that  tree,  however,  not  being  one  of  the  three.  The  excisions 
were  made  in  September,  1887,  with  the  utmost  care.  The  trees  were 
all  young  and  vigorous,  and  were  only  slightly  diseased ;  i.  e.,  they  bore 
premature  peaches  on  one  limb  only,  or  on  a  few  small  branches,  the 
rest  of  the  tree  bearing  healthy  peaches  and  fnll-grown  dark-green 
foliage.  In  most  cases  the  diseased  limbs  also  bore  spring  foliage  of 
normal  size  and  color,  and  had  not  yet  sent  out  many  of  the  character- 
istic shoots ;  in  some  instances  not  any.  In  every  case  I  removed  not 
onlj'  the  diseased  branches,  but  also  the  large  sound  limbs  which  bore 
the  affected  parts,  taking  away  from  one-third  to  one-half  the  tree. 
These  trees  were  previously  selected  with  great  care,  as  being  those  in 
which  such  an  experiment  was  most  likely  to  succeed.  After  the  excis- 
ions each  one  was  again  carefully  scrutinized  in  all  parts,  so  that  by 
no  possibility  should  any  portion  be  left  which  bore  external  manifesta- 
tions of  the  disease.  I  did  not  use  a  disinfected  saw,  but  the  stumps 
were  carefully  painted  with  red  lead,  and  this  was  rubbed  in,  especially 
.in  the  vicinity  of  the  cambium. 

In  August,  1888,  these  trees  were  re-examined.  All  of  them  bore  pre- 
mature peaches,  and  most  of  them  also  showed  the  diseased  shoots. 
Moreover,  they  were  so  badly  diseased — i.  e.,  bore  the  shoots  or  prema- 
ture peaches  on  so  many  branches — that  a  new  or  secondary  infection  in 
1888  seemed  entirely  out  of  the  question.  This  also  seemed  improbable 
from  the  condition  of  other  trees  in  the  orchards  (see  Map  IV).  On  the 
theory  of  a  new  infection  in  1888,  100  per  cent,  of  these  trees  became 
re-infected  in  one  year,  whereas  in  the  orchards  as  a  whole  the  new 
cases  did  not  much  exceed  10  per  cent. 

Fearing  I  might  not  have  cut  early  euough  in  the  season,  I  repeated 
this  experiment  in  1888,  in  August,  in  several  orchards,  particularly  in 
orchard  No.  6  (see  Map  II).  This  time  my  excisions  were  still  more 
severe.  Many  large  limbs,  clothed  with  healthy  foliage  and  bearing  a 
great  many  sound  peaches,  were  removed  for  the  sake  of  getting  rid  of 
small  diseased  limbs  and  making  assurance  doubly  sure.  In  most  cases 
I  removed  from  one-half  to  two  thirds  of  each  tree,  that  part  remaining, 
as  well  as  a  large  per  cent,  of  what  was  removed,  appearing  to  be  per- 
fectly healthy.  The  results  of  these  experiments  will  be  awaited  with 
interest.  If  they  agree  with  those  already  detailed,  it  may  be  conceded 
as  reasonably  certain  that  the  disease  can  not  be  cut  out,  and  it  may 
also  be  concluded  that  the  trees  are  not  infected  through  the  blossoms, 
at  least  not  the  same  year  that  the  premature  peaches  appear. 

Another  way  of  testing  the  validity  of  this  theory  would  be  to  remove 
all  the  blossom  buds  from  healthy  trees  in  infected  orchards  and  note 


170  SPECIAL   REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS, 

the  results  for  a  series  of  years.  This  experiment  ought  to  bo  under- 
taken in  the  spring  of  1SS9  in  several  orchards  and  in  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  trees  to  give  unequivocal  results. 

V.  RESTRICTIVE  LEGISLATION. 

WHERE   IT   HAS   BEEN  TRIED. 

Michigan. — The  first  yellows  law  ever  enacted  was  by  the  legislature 
of  Michigan,  in  1875  (see  Appendix  B).  This  was  in  response  to  an 
urgent  demand  from  all  the  peach-growers  in  the  State,  exclusive  of  those 
living  in  Berrien  County.  In  this  county  at  that  time  there  were  hun- 
dreds of  badly  diseased  orchards,  and  the  passage  of  a  law  meant  the 
entire  destruction  of  some  of  these.  Naturally,  the  opposition  to  the 
j)assage  of  such  a  measure  was  extremely  violent.  There  was  great  bit- 
terness of  feeling,  and  every  effort  was  made  to  conceal  the  exact  state 
of  the  orchards  and  to  defeat  the  bill.  Even  Mr.  Bidwell's  carefully- 
prepared  report  on  the  condition  of  orchards  in  southwestern  Michigan 
in  1873,  which  was  the  result  of  personal  inspection  and  would  be  inval- 
uable now,  was  suppressed,  apparently  lest  it  should  give  offense.  The 
final  result  of  this  feeling  was  a  compromise.  A  local  act  was  passed 
making  the  law  apply  only  to  the  three  counties  of  Van  Buren,  Allegan, 
and  Ottawa,  in  which  the  orchards  were  not  yet  seriously  diseased.  The 
orchards  of  Berrien  County  were  not  molested. 

In  1879  this  law  was  repealed,  and  one  embracing  the  whole  State  took 
its  place.  There  was  then  no  opposition  from  Berrien  County,  but  some 
hearty  support,  the  destruction  of  the  orchards  by  yellows  being  then 
nearly  complete.  This  law  of  1879  (as  may  be  seen  by  consulting  Ap- 
pendix B)  was  a  very  cumbrous  document,  and  proved  difiicult  of  exe- 
cution. In  fact,  the  delays  and  vexations  incident  to  its  enforcement 
rendered  it  practically  inoperative,  or  would  have  done  so  but  for  a 
strong  public  sentiment  in  its  favor.  The  framers  of  this  law  evidently 
had  more  consideration  for  the  property  rights  of  owners  than  for  the 
safety  of  surrounding  orchards.  They  were  certainly  not  alive  to  the 
necessity  of  dealing  promptly  and  thoroughly  with  a  disease  believed 
to  be  communicable.  The  benefit  of  the  doubt  was  given  to  the  owner, 
whereas  it  should  have  been  given  to  the  public. 

So  many  were  the  defects  of  this  law  that  in  1881  an  entirely  new 
and  much  more  efficient  law  was  placed  on  the  statute  book  (see  Ap- 
pendix B).  This  law  met  with  very  general  approval,  and  is  still  in 
force,  although  in  most  localities  public  sentiment  is  strong  enough  to 
secure  the  prompt  eradication  of  diseased  trees  without  recourse  to  the 
law.  The  most  important  provisions  of  this  law  are  as  follows:  (1)  It 
is  unlawful  to  keep,  sell,  or  ship  trees  or  fruit  when  diseased  by  yellows  j 
(2)  both  are  public  nuisances  which  maybe  destroyed  in  due  form  with- 
out liability  for  damage;  (3)  it  is  the  owner's  duty  to  destroy  as  soon  as 
known;  (4)  when  any  member  of  the  township  board  knows  or  believes 


ON    KESTRICTIVE    LEGISLATION.  171 

yellows  is  preseut,  or  is  likely  to  be  imported  or  to  appear,  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  the  board  to  appoint  three  yellows  commissioners;  (5)  these 
commissioners  must  file  acceptance  within  ten  days,  and  the  township 
clerk  must  keep  a  formal  record  of  their  proceedings;  (6)  on  suspicion, 
with  or  without  comj)laint,  one  of  the  commissioners  must  examine  all 
doubtful  trees  and  fruit,  and  mark  such  as  are  found  to  be  diseased  ;  (7) 
the  board  of  commissioners  must  then  at  once,  personally  or  in  writing, 
notify  the  owner  or  person  in  charge  to  destroy  them;  (8)  if  this  is  not 
done  within  ten  days,  the  commissioners  shall  immediately  destroy 
them  in  person,  or  by  others,  having  right  and  power  to  enter  upon  all 
premises  for  this  purpose  ;  (9)  i)ersons  ignoriug  such  notice  are  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  subject  to  fine  or  imprisonment,  or  both,  in  the 
discretion  of  the  justice  court;  (10)  all  expenses  of  such  removal  are 
recoverable  by  the  township  from  the  owner. 

The  principal  defects  in  this  law  are  (1)  that  it  does  not  make  all  the 
commissioners  in  the  State  responsible  to  some  one  executive  head, 
whose  sole  business  shall  be  to  keep  records,  disseminate  information, 
and  see  that  the  work  is  well  done,  and  (2)  that  it  does  not  pay  them  suf- 
ficient to  make  the  strict  enforcement  of  the  law  an  important  personal 
matter.  As  the  law  now  stands  it  is  enforced  in  some  places  and  not 
in  others,  and  no  careful  records  are  kept  so  as  to  determine  the  per 
cent,  of  trees  annually  destroyed.  The  law  has  been  in  force  in  Michi- 
gan lung  enough  to  have  furnished  the  strongest  kind  of  statistical 
evidence  in  its  favor  if  such  records  had  only  been  systematically  pre- 
served. 

Ontario. — The  first  Ontario  law  was  i)assed  in  18S1,  being  modeled 
after  that  of  Michigan  (see  Appendix  B),  This  law  was  amended  in 
1884,  so  as  to  be  practically  worthless,  for  the  following  reasons :  (I)  A 
petition  of  fifty  rate-payers  is  necessary  to  secure  the  appointment  of 
an  inspector,  if  the  council  is  not  disposed  to  appoint  without;  (2)  the 
inspector  can  act  only  on  written  complaint ;  (3)  the  fine  for  neglect  to 
destroy  trees  and  for  sale  or  shipment  of  fruit  is  trifling ;  (4)  no  pro- 
vision is  made  for  the  immediate  and  complete  destruction  of  trees  and 
fruit  in  case  of  neglect  or  refusal  on  part  of  owner  to  comply  with  the 
law. 

New  YorL—The  New  York  law  was  passed  in  1887.  It  is  almost 
identical  with  that  now  in  force  in  Michigan  (see  Appendix  B). 

WHAT  HAS   BEEX  ACCOMPLISHED. 

Long  before  any  laws  were  enacted  many  peach -growers  had  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  prompt  removal  and  destruction  was  the  only 
proper  way  to  deal  with  yellows.  As  long  ago  as  1828  William  Prince 
earnestly  advised  this  course.  Since  that  date  ^SToyes  Darling,  Eobert 
Siaclair,  A.  J.  Downing,  Charles  Downing,  J.  J.  Thomas,  T.  T.  Lyon, 
Charles  W.  Garfield,  and  many  other  prominent  writers  on  American 
pomology  have  also  advocated  prompt  removal  and  destruction.    The 


172  SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS. 

opposition,  with  few  exceptious,  has  been  on  the  part  of  persons  less 
competent  to  judge  and  has  had  its  main  root  in  pecuniary  and  private 
interest. 

Naturally  the  first  question  to  be  asked  is,  Whether  these  laws  have 
accomplished  the  desired  result  ?  Has  the  removal  of  these  trees  stopped 
the  spread  of  the  disease  1  If  so,  where  ?  If  not,  why  not  ?  First,  how- 
ever, it  may  be  well  to  inquire  whether  individual  efforts  in  this  direc- 
tion have  accomplished  anything-. 

In  the  badly  infected  districts  of  Maryland  and  Delaware  I  could  not 
see  that  removal  of  trees  in  1887  or  failure  to  remove  them  made  much 
diflerence  in  1888.  In  orchard  No.  6  of  this  report  (see  Map  II)  11  per 
cent,  ot  the  trees  became  diseased  in  1887,  and  were  removed  that  fall 
or  early  next  spring,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few  which  were  over- 
looked. In  1888,  11.4  per  cent,  of  the  remaining  healthy  trees  became 
affected.  In  orchard  No.  14  of  this  report  (see  Map  IV)  9  per  cent,  of 
the  trees  became  diseased  in  1887  and  were  not  removed.  In  1888,  11.4 
per  cent,  of  the  remaining  healthy  trees  became  diseased.  These  two 
orchards  are  of  about  the  same  size,  age,  and  condition  ;  are  in  districts 
about  equally  affected,  became  diseased  the  same  year  and  to  about  the 
same  extent,  and  are  on  similar  soil.  So  far  as  I  know,  they  may  in  all 
respects  be  taken  for  comparison. 

However,  on  almost  any  theory  of  infection  the  removal  of  diseased 
trees  can  not  be  expected  to  yield  very  marked  results  when  all  the 
surrounding  orchards  are  badly  affected  and  the  destruction  of  trees  is 
entirely  neglected.  A  fairer  test  was  found  in  localities  less  affected. 
There,  in  a  half  dozen  or  more  orchards,  where  the  owners  had  re- 
moved diseased  trees  systematically  for  a  series  of  years,  e.g.,  Nos.  4,  5, 
and  IG  of  this  report,  I  thought  I  detected  a  tendency  of  the  disease  to 
spread  more  slowly  than  in  neighboring  orchards.  Yet  this  may  have 
been  due  to  other  causes  than  the  removal  of  contaglum. 

Several  person  have  reported  more  convincing  results.  In  1843  A. 
J.  Downing  declares,^  "  It  is  absolutely  necessary  to  destroy  all  trees 
having  the  yellows,  in  order  to  insure  a  sound  condition  in  a  young 
plantation  yet  healthy ;  "  and  in  1849  he  states  that  by  pursuing  this 
course  the  disease  had  been  almost  entirel^^  eradicated  at  Newburgh, 
N.  Y.2    In  1878  A.  A.  Olds,  of  Decatur,  Mich.,  states  that— 

The  orchards  of  Saint  Joseph  where  no  means  were  taken  to  check  the  disease 
■were  used  up  pretty  thoroughly  iu  four  or  five  years.  In  others  where  radical  meas- 
ures of  extermiuatiou  were  adopted  the  length  of  time  was  doubled.' 

The  prompt  removal  of  102  out  of  3,300  four-years-old  trees  in  1876, 
in  an  orchard  on  the  "  Henry  Walker  Farm, "  in  Thoroughfare  Neck, 
on  Smyrna  Creek,  near  Flemming's  Landing,  Delaware,  is  said  by  Dr. 
Dunlap,^  on  the  authority  of  John  Carrow,  of  Saint  George's,  to  have 

1  The  Cultivator,  AH>auy,  N.  Y.,  1S43,  p.  iU3. 

2  The  HonieulturUt,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1849,  p.  503. 

^  Ann.  Ecpt.  of  the  Sec.  of  ike  Mich.  State  Pom.  Soc.,  1878,  p.  2G9. 
■*  Letter  of  September  5,  1887. 


ON    RESTRICTIVE    LEGISLATION.  173 

checked  the  spread  of  the  disease  at  that  time.  la  188C  this  orchard 
is  said  to  have  beeu  in  good  bearing.  Unfortunately  I  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  verify  these  statements. 

Michigan  and  Ontario  are  the  localities  where  we  must  look  for  the 
most  satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry.  The  first  Michigan  law  took 
effect  in  1875.  and  from  that  time  to  this,  some  yellows  law  has  beeu  in 
force.  Fourteen  years  ought  to  be  long  enough  to  decide  on  the  use- 
fulness of  such  a  measure. 

I  write  the  following  paragraphs  with  considerable  hesitation,  not 
because  I  question  the  general  accuracy  of  the  statements,  but  because 
I  have  not  made  exhaustive  studies  in  the  orchards  of  southwestern 
Michigan,  and  shall  have  to  depend  almost  entirely  on  the  statements 
of  other  meu — men,  however,  who  are  peach  growers,  and  for  whose 
opinion  I  have  much  respect.  The  evidence  that  prompt  destruction 
of  all  diseased  trees  checks  the  progress  of  the  disease  lacks  scientific 
accuracy,  but  is  nevertheless  quite  full  and  reasonably  conclusive,  as 
much  so  perhaps  as  circumstantial  evidence  and  general  impressions 
can  ever  be.  My  own  belief  is  that  the  Michigan  law  is  capable  of  ac- 
complishing the  desired  result,  and  that  it  has  accomplished  it  very 
satisfactorily  in  the  places  wheie  it  has  been  strictly  enforced.  I  regret 
that  I  can  not  furnish  something  in  the  nature  of  exact  proof.  As  it 
is,  I  can  only  give  impressions  and  general  statements  of  the  growers. 

Some  of  these  are  as  follows  : 

(1)  That  dreadful  scourge  of  the  peach-grower,  yellows,  has  made  slow  but 
marked  progress  during  the  year  iu  this  locality.  The  law  has  not  beeu  observed  as 
closely  as  it  should  be  in  the  matter  of  cutting  and  burning  the  trees  at  sight,  nor 
yet  in  the  shipping  of  partially  diseased  fruit.  After  all,  a  great  majority  of  the 
leading  fruit-growers  fully  believe  that  as  a  rule  those  who  have  cut  out  their  trees 
at  once  as  soon  as  discovered,  have  not  only  got  the  most  trees  left,  but  have  for  a 
term  of  years  lost  a  much  less  percentage  than  those  who  have  allowed  their  trees 
to  stand  through  the  season  in  order  to  pick  what  fruit  they  were  able  to  obtain  before 
cutting  the  tree  down.  A  large  majority  also  believe  that  the  disease  can  be  kept  in 
check  if  all  fruit-growers  would  dig  out  and  burn  all  trees  as  soon  as  they  discover 
the  disease. — Secretary  J.  G.  Ramsdp:ll,  South  Haven,  Mich.^ 

(2)  We  think  we  are  holding  the  disease  iu  check  by  promptly  destroying  the  trees 
ou  the  first  manifestation  of  the  disease. — Joseph  Lannix,  South  Haven,  Mich.^ 

(3)  By  prompt  measures  the  disease,  which  promised  to  sweep  everything  before 
it,  has  been  stayed,  and  the  hope  is  born  that  soon  we  shall  be  able  to  resist  its  fur- 
ther encroachments. 

The  advent  of  that  paralyzing  disease,  the  yellows,  introduced  anew  epoch  in  Mich- 
igan peach  culture.  It  swept  the  industry  from  Berrien  County  before  its  power  was 
known,  and  invaded  the  counties  northward  ;  but  a  careful  study  of  the  habits  of  the 
disease  and  protective  legislation  have  assisted  the  growers  to  meet  the  destroyer  in 
successful  combat.  And  although  to-day  little  more  is  known  of  the  cause  of  the 
disease  than  when  it  first  invaded  our  soil,  its  symptoms  are  so  well  understood,  and 
the  most  approved  methods  of  warfare  so  thoroughly  taught  to  growers,  that  its  prog- 

1  Ann.  Bept.  of  the  iSec'y  of  the  Mich.  State  Sort.  Soc.,  1882,  p.  306. 
-Hid.,  1884,  p.  11. 


174         SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS. 

ress  is  not  feared. — Address  on  Michigan  horticulture,  by  Hon.  Chas  W.  Garfield, 
of  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.^ 

(4)  We  can  control  the  disease  perfectly  among  thrifty  orchardists  because  they  will 
dig  out  every  infected  tree  as  soon  as  the  disease  develops.  The  malady  is  not  now 
spreading  in  our  State. — Charles  W.  Garfield. - 

(5)  G.  H.  La  rieur,  of  Millgrove,  Allegan  County,  writes  that  yellows  first  appeared 
in  Casco  Township  in  1874,  and  gradually  extended  northward  into  Gauges  and  Sau- 
gatuck,  and  eastward  into  Allegan  Township.  He  first  saw  the  disease  in  the  summer 
of  1876,  i.  e.,  ten  years  after  it  was  discovered  at  Saint  Joseph.  "  By  this  time  most 
growers  became  convinced  that  the  ax  and  fire  were  the  only  remedies,  hence  the 
disease  spread  not  so  rapidly  as  in  the  southern  part  near  the  point  of  its  origin." 
Mr.  La  Fleur  also  says  that  in  the  east  part  of  Allegan  County,  where  the  law  has  not 
been  enforced,  the  disease  has  reduced  the  number  of  trees  50  per  cent,  and  greatly 
discouraged  peach  growing,  while  in  the  west  part  of  the  county,  where  the  disease 
first  appeared,  but  where  the  law  has  been  enforced,  the  number  of  peach  trees  has 
increased  annually. 

Many  instances  have  come  under  his  observation  where,  by  the  prompt  removal  of 
the  diseased  trees,  the  yellows  has  been  kept  in  check ;  and  also  where,  with  little  or 
no  attention  paid  to  the  removal  of  diseased  trees,  whole  orchards  soon  became  dis- 
eased and  are  now  dead.^ 

(6)  We  have  h<ad  yellows  commissioners  since  1879,  and  one  year,  1S85,  I  think, 
they  kei)t  an  exact  record  showing  the  number  of  trees  in  every  orchard  examined 
and  the  number  of  trees  diseased  with  yellows  so  as  to  give  the  j)ercentage  of  loss. 
I  have  not  the  figures,  but  I  have  kept  track  of  the  matter  closely  enough  to  be  cer- 
tain that  the  disease  has  not  increased  in  any  orchard  where  the  proper  attention  was 
given,  i.  e.,  where  the  trees  were  destroyed  as  soon  as  they  were  known  to  be  diseased. 
For  instance,  in  Mr.  Baxter's  orchard  were  found  more  diseased  trees  the  first  year 
than  were  found  there  in  any  subsequent  year.  Mr.  Halstead,  in  an  orchard  of  say 
two  thousand  trees,  destroyed  more  trees  the  first  year  that  the  disease  appeared  than 
he  found  in  any  year  after  that.  He  has  an  orchard  tliat  is  seventeen  or  eighteen 
years  old,  and  it  has  very  many  of  the  original  trees  still,  and  in  a  healthy,  bearing 
condition.  I  have  observed  the  matter  carefullj',  and  have  found  invariably  that 
when  great  care  was  taken  to  destroy  the  diseased  trees  and  to  give  projjer  cultiva- 
tion, etc.,  those  orchards  have  survived  and  given  good  results,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  when  the  trees — diseased  trees — were  neglected,  allowed  to  remain,  the  disease 

has  invariably  spread  very  rapidly  and  the  entire  orchard  has  soon  disappeared. 

#  #  #  jf  #  It  # 

I  do  not  think  that  the  loss  from  yellows  [ever]  amounts  to  more  than  say  5  per 
cent,  a  year,  generally  much  less  than  that,  frequently  not  above  1  per  cent,  of  the 
trees  in  the  orchard. — Hon.  C.  D.  Lawton,  Lawton,  Mich. » 

(7)  I  was  commissioner  of  yellows  for  this  township  (Saugatuck)  for  six  years. 
When  entering  upon  that  work  I  attempted  to  make  a  list  of  diseased  trees  in  every 
orchard  and  the  varieties  aftected,  but  in  a  little  time  found  that  I  could  not  carry 
out  my  plan.  I  could  not  go  through  all  the  orchards  in  our  township,  and  examine 
every  tree  in  the  limited  time  in  which  such  work  must  be  done.  As  the  larger  part 
of  our  fruit-men  are  anxious  to  learn  how  to  detect  the  existence  of  yellows  in  their 
orchards,  it  soon  became  evident  that  a  little  instruction  would  enable  very  many  to 
take  care  of  their  own  orchards.  Then  the  commissioner  would  only  find  it  uecea- 
sary  to  look  after  the  careless  ones.  In  this  way  we  have  succeeded  in  doing  a  great 
deal  of  work  at  a  small  expense  of  time  and  money.     All  peach-growers  who  became 

'  The  Semi-Centennial  of  the  Admission  of  the  State  of  Michigan  into  the  Union — Adr 
dresses.    Detroit  Free  Press  Co.,  1886,  pp.  419,  420. 
«  Letter  of  August  3,  1887. 
3  Letter  of  February  2,  1888. 
^  Letter  of  .January  24,  1868. 


ON   EESTRICTIVE    LEGISLATION.  175 

thorouglily  ai'oused  to  the  destructive  nature  of  the  yellows,  have  cut  diseased  trees 
without  delay  as  soou  as  discovered.  For  several  years  after  the  disease  made  its  ap- 
pearance in  this  town  some  men  refused  to  cut  thetr  trees,  but  of  late  nearly  every 
one  cuts  diseased  trees  as  soon  as  they  are  found.     *     «     * 

My  neighbor  had  about  three  thousand  trees.  In  the  year  IWS  I  condemned  three 
hundred  trees  iu  his  orchards.  He  cut  out  all  that  he  found  with  marks  of  disease, 
but  failed  to  find  them  all.  Since  that  year  he  has  cut  all  condemned  trees,  and  for 
the  last  five  yeai's  not  o^er  twenty  per  year,  although  he  has  enlarged  his  orchards 
to  six  thousand  trees.  In  my  orchard  of  three  hundred  iu  1877  one  tree  had  the  yel- 
lows ;  in  1878,  forty  trees  had  the  yellows.  These  we  cut  and  dug  out.  In  1879  we 
found  six  trees  with  yellows.  Since  that  time  I  have  enlarged  my  orchards  from 
year  to  year,  until  they  now  contain  about  three  thousand  trees,  from  one  to  fifteen 
years  of  age,  and  no  yellows  have  appeared  since  1879.  These  cases  are  good  illus- 
trations of  the  whole  township. 

Every  man  within  the  range  of  my  personal  knowledge  who  has  cut  out  all  dis- 
eased trees  without  delay  has  not  lost  very  heavily  after  the  first  year,  while  those 
who  have  delayed  this  work  have  continued  to  lose  every  year. — Kev.  James  F.  Tay- 
lor, Douglas,  Mich.i 

(8)  I  have  had  no  yellows  in  my  orchards  for  the  last  six  years.  I  think  I  have 
not  lost  in  all  to  exceed  ten  trees. — L.  Howard,  Ganges,  Mich.- 

Mr.  Howard  adds  that  the  neighboring  Perrotet  orchard,  which  was 
set  iu  18G2  and  removed  iu  1886,  never  suffered  from  yellows  until  1885, 
when  the  commissioners  condemned  five  or  six  trees.  On  his  own  farm 
he  cut  down  peach  trees  thirty  years  old,  not  on  account  of  yellows, 
but  because  they  stood  near  an  apple  orchard  and  were  crowded  out. 

(9)  D.  W.  Wiley,  of  Douglas,  a  yellows  commissioner  for  four  years,  has  no  doubt 
as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  law,  but  says  :  "In  some  of  our  lake-shore  towns  there  seems 
to  be  a  neglect  in  taking  out  and  destroying  diseased  trees.  In  these  localities  the 
disease  is  on  the  increase,  and  from  such  neglect  we  may  in  time  lose  all  our  trees."' 

(10)  Harrison  Hutchins  states  that  in  Allegan  County  yellows  is  less  prevalent  on 
the  light  sand  within  a  mile  or  two  of  Lake  Michigan  than  on  the  heavier  and  more 
fertile  loams  5  or  6  miles  distant,  where  the  law  has  not  been  so  well  enforced.'* 

(11)  The  disease  is  in  nearly  all  orchards,  more  or  less,  /.  e.,  trees  show  up  every 
summer.  Every  grower  expects  to  find  some  ;  but  I  think  in  very  few  very  serious — 
the  past  four  years  from  1  to  20  trees  in  each.  The  past  season  [1888]  has  shown  a 
slight  increase  over  the  several  last,  but  not  nearly  as  serious  as  from  1878  to  1882. 

The  yellows  law  at  present  practically  enforces  itself.  I  do  not  know  of  a  grower 
in  this  township,  and  I  think  of  but  one  in  the  adjoining  one  of  Casco  that  does  not 
fully  believe  the  diseased  trees  must  be  taken  out  to  save  the  balance  of  the  orchard. 
I  think  a  yellows  commissioner  has  not  been  called  for  for  the  last  four  years;  but 
before  that  it  cost  South  Haven  about  $100  per  year  for  his  services.  It  cost  several 
growers  a  good  many  times  that  before  they  would  believe  thorough  taking  out  the 
trees  would  save  their  healthy  trees,  one  orchard  of  2,500  being  swept  clean.  But 
the  thorough  work  of  some  growers  resulted  in  all  cases  in  saving  a  good  part  of  the 
trees.  The  only  cases  where  such  was  not  the  result  were  where  growers  were  sur- 
rounded by  those  that  would  not  remove  the  disease  and  so  kept  the  vicinity  seeded 
with  the  yellows.  The  result  has  been  so  conclusive  that  those  who  opposed  the 
strongest  the  enforcement  of  the  law  are  now  in  fall  accord  with  it,  and,  if  still  grow- 
ing peaches,  remove  the  disease  as  soon  as  it  shows.  There  are  many  fine  young 
orchards  now  growing  on  the  same  ground  from  which  the  disease  swept  the  old 
trees.  I  have  one  myself — trees  thix-e  years  old — on  land  that  the  previous  owner 
allowed  to  go  with  the  yellows.     So  far,  no  disease  has  shown  in  the  young  trees. 

1  Letter  of  January  25, 1888.  3  Letter  of  April  18,  1888. 

2  Letter  of  April  1,  1888.  ■•  Letter  of  November  1 ,  1888. 


176  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON   PEACH    YELLOWS. 

I  must  say  the  disease  is  more  prevalent  where  the  law  has  been  enforced,  simply 
for  the  reason  that  there  is  still  something  for  it  to  feed  upon.  To  prove  this,  I  will 
say  that  ten  years  ago  the  townships  of  Bangor,  Arlington,  and  Geneva,  in  this 
county,  especiiilly  the  first  two,  were  shipping  thousands  of  baskets  of  peaches. 
They  never  enforced  tlie  law.  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  shi])per  in  either  of  the  three 
townships  to-day,  nor  do  I  know  of  an  orchard.  Of  course  there  is  no  yellows.  I 
saw  orchards  there  seven  or  eight  years  ago  in  which  nearly  every  tree  was  affected. 

As  for  South  Haven  and  Casco,  where  the  law  has  been  enforced,  and  also  in  Ant- 
werp, in  the  southeast  part  of  this  county,  I  think  it  is  safe  to  say  there  are  ten 
bearing  trees  to  one  twelve  years  figo,  and  that,  too,  notwithstanding  the  heavy 
losses  we  had  for  several  years.  I  am  fully  convinced  not  a  bearing,  healthy  tree 
wonld  be  here  to-day,  had  it  not  been  for  our  enforcement  of  the  yellows  law. 

'T  do  not  know  of  any  other  statistics  than  those  to  which  you  refer  (see  p.  177), 
We  have  no  need  of  them  here.  The  results  are  enough  for  us.  Probably  the  New 
Jersey  growers  can  learn  like  our  neighbors  at  Saint  Joseph  and  Benton  Harbor. 
The  latter  did  not  and  would  not  believe  the  disease  was  contagious.  Fifteen  or 
eighteen  years  ago  it  took  a  half-dozen  steamers  to  carry  their  peaches.  To-day  they 
have  not  a  bearing  orchard  in  the  whole  country.  They  have  learned  something, 
however.  They  have  cleared  the  old  trees  out  thoroughly  and  are  starting  again, 
and  so  far  doing  well. — A.  G.  Gulley,  South  Haven,  Mich.' 

The  statements  from  Ontario  are  to  mucb  the  same  effect.  D.  W. 
Beadle,  of  St.  Catharines,  a  prominent  member  of  the  Ontario  Fruit 
Growers'  Association,  and  formerly  editor  of  The  Canadian  Horticult- 
urist, writes  as  follows : 

The  peach  yellows  first  appeared  in  Ontario  about  twelve  years  ago — almost  simul- 
taneously at  Grimsby  and  Stamford.  *  *  *  In  Stamford  it  has  destroyed  many 
of  the  orchards  entirely.  In  Grimsby  up  to  the  present  time  its  ravages  have  not 
been  so  severe.  I  can  not  say  that  it  is  any  less  prevalent  now  than  it  has  been.  The 
law  has  not  been  carefully  enforced  ;  it  has  been  better  enforced  in  the  Grimsby  sec- 
tion than  in  any  other  part  of  the  Niagara  district,  and  we  are  inclined  to  believe 
that  it  is  owing  to  the  attention  paid  to  this  law  that  the  disease  has  been  less  de- 
structive in  Grimsby  than  in  Stamford.^ 

Linus  Woolverton,  of  Grimsby,  secretary  of  the  Fruit  Growers'  As- 
sociation of  Ontario,  and  present  editor  of  The  Canadian  Horticulturist, 
writes  as  follows :  ^ 

The  law  concerning  the  destruction  of  peach  trees  affected  with  the  yellows  has 
been  enforced,  especially  for  two  or  three  years  while  the  disease  was  at  its  worst. 
The  inspectors  visited  orchards  affected,  and  marked  the  trees  that  should  be  de- 
stroyed, and  in  most  instances  the  owners  that  knew  the  dangerous  nature  of  the  dis- 
ease were  only  too  glad  to  follow  out  orders  and  co-operate  in  the  destruction  of  the 
affected  tress. 

I  may  say  that  the  disease  has  been  checked,  because  affected  orchards  have  been 
almost  completely  cut  down  and  burned  ;  but  still  we  find  young  orchards  showing  it 
here  and  there,  especially  [?]  if  planted  where  diseased  trees  have  lately  been  re- 
moved ,  and  as  the  inspectors  have  relaxed  their  exertions  we  may  shortly  be  in  as 
bad  a  state  as  ever. 

Very  much,  however,  depends  upon  theorchardists.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  more 
depends  upon  them  than  upon  the  inspectors,  and  a  dissemination  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  dangerous  nature  of  the  yellows  and  the  necessity  of  prompt  extermination  of 
trees  affected  should  accompany  any  legislation  upon  the  subject. 

1  Letter  of  November  26,  1888.  ^Letter  of  February  24,  1888. 

« Letter  of  June  1,  X888. 


ON    RESTEICTIVE    LEGISLATION. 


177 


The  only  exact  aunual  record  I  have  been  able  to  find  of  trees  exam- 
ined and  trees  destroyed  is  the  following-: 

Table  XIX. — Showing  result  of  examinations  at  South  Haven,  Mich. 
[By  D.  B.  "Williams,  yellowa  commissioner.] 


Tear. 

Number  of 

trees 
examined. 

Number 

with 
j'ellows. 

Per  cent, 
diseased. 

1879.. 

1880.. 
1881.. 
1882.. 

62,  856 

68,  758 

71,  353 

120,  425 

2,245 
5,075 
3,256 
4,544 

3.5 
8.0 
4.5 
4.0 

This  report  covers  only  about  two-thirds  of  the  territory  intended. 
Two  other  commissioners  were  appointed,  but  made  no  report.  None 
have  since  been  appointed,  and  no  record  has  been  kept.^  Had  this 
record  been  continued  to  date,  and  extended  to  include  all  trees  at 
South  Haven,  it  would  now  be  invaluable. 

WHAT  MAY  BE   HOPED. 

In  discussing  this  question  I  shall  assume  that  peach  yellows  is  a 
communicable  disease.  The  evidence  in  favor  of  such  an  assumption  is 
stronger  than  that  which  has  sufficed  to  hang  many  a  man,  and  in 
the  absence  of  direct  proof  to  the  contrary  is  certainly  strong  enough 
to  warrant  legislative  action.  In  all  such  cases  the  public  have  a  right 
to  claim  the  benefit  of  the  doubt.  Even  in  the  present  inexact  state 
of  our  knowledge  it  is  justifiable  on  the  part  of  State  legislatures  to 
make  statutes  compelling  the  immediate  removal  and  destruction  of  all 
affected  trees. 

In  peach-growing  States  now  free  from  the  disease  it  would  be  wise 
to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  all  trees  from  infected  areas.  Certainly, 
if  yellows  does  not  now  occur  in  California  (and  by  diligent  inquiry  I 
have  failed  to  ascertain  that  it  does),  the  greatest  care  should  be  taken 
to  prevent  its  introduction,  even  to  the  extent  of  legislation  strictly 
prohibiting  the  importation  of  peach  trees  from  the  Eastern  United 
States.  Unless  such  steps  are  taken  the  appearance  of  yellows  in 
orchards  on  the  Pacific  coast  is  only  a  matter  of  time.  To  what  a  great 
extent  California  is  interested  in  maintaining  her  present  freedom  from 
this  disease  may  be  known  from  the  fact  that  in  1886  the  peach  orchards 
of  that  State  contained  3,617,973  trees,^  while  the  nectarine,  almond, 
and  apricot  orchards  contained  about  one  half  as  many  more. 

The  principal  objection  to  such  laws  is  that  valuable  property  will 
be  destroyed.    But  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to  destroy  property  for 

'Postal  of  January  21,  1888. 

^OflScial  statistics  byE.  W.  Masliu,  secretary  State  Board  of  Equalization.  Bien- 
nial Beport  of  the  State  Board  of  Horticulture  for  1885  and  1836.  Sacraiueuto,  State 
office,  1887,  pp.  515,  516. 

11245— No.  9 12 


178  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

tbe  preservation  of  surro  indiDg  property,  or  for  other  reasons.  More- 
over, it  may  be  urged  against  this  objection  (1)  that  premature  peaches 
are  of  an  inferior  quality,  generally  unfit  to  eat,  and  are  not  eaten  to 
any  extent  where  they  are  grown,  and  ought  not  to  be  palmed  off  on 
an  unsuspecting  public  to  the  possible  injury  of  health  and  to  the  cer- 
tain injury  of  markets  and  the  discredit  of  good  fruit;  (2)  that  diseased 
trees  speedily  become  unfruitful  and  worthless,  and  consequently  have 
from  the  start  only  a  small  money  value.  Neither  of  these  propositions 
can  be  disputed,  and  together  they  meet  and  fully  answer  this  objection, 
which,  moreover,  is  of  small  weight  in  comparison  with  the  reasons  as- 
signed for  action. 

In  my  judgment  the  prompt  destruction  of  aftected  trees  by  fire,  if 
practiced  throughout  a  community,  will  greatly  hinder  the  progress  of 
the  disease.  With  the  utmost  care  cases  will  appear  from  time  to  time, 
more  some  years  than  others,  but  there  will  be  no  outbreak  comparable 
to  an  epidemic.  At  least  such  has  been  the  experience  in  communities 
which  have  practiced  this  method  from  the  first  appearance  of  the  dis- 
ease. Whether  a  locality  which  has  once  suffered  disastrously  can 
again  become  a  profitable  region  by  the  strict  enforcement  of  this 
method  remains  to  be  seen.  The  results  at  Benton  Harbor  and  Saint 
Joseph,  Mich.,  where  this  is  being  tried,  will  be  watched  during  the 
next  few  years  with  the  greatest  interest.  According  to  E.  Morrill,  of 
Benton  Harbor,  300,000  peach  trees  have  been  set  in  the  vicinity  of 
that  place  during  the  past  three  years,  and  no  yellows  have  yet  ap- 
peared.i 

It  will  not,  however,  be  of  much  permanent  benefit,  I  conceive,  for 
one  man  or  a  few  men  to  remove  their  trees  while  the  rest  of  the  com- 
munity neglect  to  do  so.  In  the  union  of  all  fruit-growers  there  is 
strength  and  safety.  If  this  method  of  restriction  is  to  be  given  a  fair 
trial  it  must  be  supported  by  a  strong  public  sentiment,  backed  by  a 
suitable  law. 

Where  it  is  not  possible  to  make  a  law  apply  to  an  entire  State,  on 
account  of  sectional  ©position,  it  might  at  first  be  made  to  apply  only 
to  the  regions  least  affected,as  in  case  of  the  Michigan  law  of  1875. 

VL  CONCLUSIONS  AS  TO  THE  CAUSE  OF  YELLOWS. 

HYPOTHESES   RULED   OUT. 

From  what  precedes  we  are  reasonably  safe  in  concluding  that  yel- 
lows is  not  due  to  climatic  influences.  Frosts,  floods,  and  drouths  may 
be  modifying  influences,  but  are  nothing  more.  Injuries  by  men,  quad- 
rupeds, and  borers  may  also  be  included  in  the  list  of  disproved  the- 
ories.   They  stand  in  no  causal  relation  to  this  disease.     To  the  same 

1  Report  at  meeting  of  West  Michigan  Fruit  Growers'  Association,  December  18, 

IbSS.—AUefjan  Gazette,  January  12,  1889, 


CONCLUSIONS.  1 79 

category  may  be  added  excessive  cultivation,  neglect  of  cultivation, 
and  neglect  of  pruning.  So  also  injury  to  taproots,  propagation  by 
buds  rather  than  by  seeds,  defective  drainage,  use  of  animal  manures, 
etc.  Some  of  these  things  may  favor  the  development  of  peach  yel- 
lows, but  I  think  none  of  them  can  cause  it.  The  evidence  here  set 
forth  seems  to  establish  this  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  Probably 
most  of  my  readers  will  be  ready  to  admit  that  soil-exhaustion  is  also 
an  unsatisfactory  explanation.  As  the  case  now  stands,  this  theory 
must  be  set  aside  as  untenable.  At  least,  we  need  give  no  further  at- 
tention until  more  and  stronger  evidence  is  adduced  in  its  favor.  I 
write  this  with  regret,  for  I  hoped  to  be  able  to  confirm  this  view,  as  it 
would  have  offered  an  easy  and  practical  solution  of  the  whole  diffi- 
culty. 

HYPOTHESES  PROBABLY  RULED  OUT. 

Among  supposed  causes  deserving  further  inquiry  I  should  place 
root-aphides  and  root-fungi.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  neither  one 
is  at  the  bottom  of  the  trouble ;  yet  another  summer  in  the  field  would 
enable  me  to  speak  more  positively. 

REMAINING  PROBABLE   HYPOTHESES. 

What  then  remains  ?  The  larger  fungi  are  out  of  the  question,  and  I 
can  think  of  nothing  else  but  micro-organisms.  The  spread  of  yellows 
from  diseased  buds  to  healthy  stocks,  which  I  have  carefully  verified, 
points  strongly  to  some  contagium  vivmn  as  the  cause  of  the  disease. 
If  a  micro-organism  be  really  the  cause,  it  probably  occurs  quite  con- 
stantly in  some  part  of  each  diseased  tree,  and  this  must  be  estab- 
lisbed  beyond  question ;  it  must  also  be  clearly  distinguished  from 
similar  organisms  not  related  to  the  disease ;  and,  finally,  it  must  be 
isolated  by  cultivation  in  suitable  nutritive  media  and  be  able  to  pro- 
duce the  disease  when  inserted  into  healthy  trees.  If,  from  a  pure  cult- 
ure of  some  micro-organism  peach  yellows  can  be  induced  in  healthy 
trees,  then  the  case  is  closed  and  there  can  be  but  one  verdict.  I  write 
this  paragraph  with  ease,  but  the  work  itself  is  full  of  difficulties. 
Kature  does  not  yield  her  secrets  upon  the  mere  asking.  Only  those 
engaged  in  similar  inquiries  can  have  any  adequate  conception  of  the 
labor  involved  or  of  the  perplexities  which  beset  one  at  every  step. 
Moreover,  in  such  an  inquiry  nothing  can  be  promised  in  advance. 
The  investigator  and  the  public  alike  must  take  their  chances  on  the 
results.  However,  as  I  have  elsewhere  stated,  there  seems  to  be  every 
encouragement  for  the  renewed  and  i^ersistent  prosecution  of  this  in- 
quiry. By  such  effort  sources  of  error  will  be  discovered,  difficulties 
overcome,  and  the  truth  finally  established. 


Appendix  A. 

CHEMICAL  ANALYSES. 

Some  analyses  of  healthy  and  diseased  peach  tissues,  made  in  this 
country  and  undertaken  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  some  light  on  the 
nature  of  peach  yellows,  are  presented  herewith  in  full. 

When  necessary  for  comparison  I  have  also  introduced  transformed 
tables  giving  the  constituents  in  the  form  of  acids  and  oxides.  These 
equivalent  tables  follow  those  given  by  the  chemists  themselves. 

ANALYSES   BY   PKOFKSSOU  E.MMONS,    OF   ALBANY,  N.   Y.' 

Table  I.  "Small  seedling  peach.  Age  of  the  tree,  twvnltj-ihree  years.  Mean  diameter, 
3^  inches.  Thickness  of  harlc,  one-seventh  of  an  inch.  Growth,  rather  slow.  Average 
thickness  of  each  [annual']  lai/cr,  0.0699  of  inch." 


Aah  constituents. 

Bark 
of 

trunk. 

"Wood 

of 
trunk. 

Bark 

of 
root. 

Wood 

of 
root. 

Leaves. 

Pits.* 

Bark 

of 
limbs.t 

Wood 

of 
lirabs.t 

Potash i 

Soda ^ 

Chloride  of  sodium 

L20^ 
0.04 

7.11 
11.15 
0.10 

3.10 
1.02 
0.33 

8.58 

15.92 

5.  CO 

12.41 

0.36 
12.12 

18.47 
5.21 
2.70 

8.85 
0.28 

19.21 
8.11 
0.24 

4.10 

1.51 

3.44 

0.58 

15.12 

6.18 

8.07 

42. 17 
2. 10 
0.45 

18.79 
0.01 
3.30 
4.15 

23.20 
6.40 
0.32 

2D.  10 
1.34 
5.20 
L35 

38.48 
2.91 

1 10. 40? 

3.  GO 
9.40 
1.40 

104.56 

0.11 
0.01 
1.02 
18.10 
30.00 
2.55 
6.  40 

89.02 

14.77 
8.00 
2.47 

10.44 
3.15 
0.8G 
6.42 
4.48 

86.85 

16.80 
1.33 
1.33 

17.98 
0.02 
6.  61 

10.00 

31.98 
6.00 
l.CO 
8.50 
0.20 
5.00 
4.30 
1.00 

24.64 
9.76 
0.60 

13.20 
0.20 
8.40 
1.00 
1.20 

Phosphate  peroxide  of  ii  on 
Phosph.ito  lime 

Phosphate  magnesia 

Coal 

Total    

109.  04 

104.  97 

128.77 

99.03 

104. 99 

'Analysis  made  with  two  grains  of  ash. 

^Report  of  the  Commissioner  of 


t  Peach  limbs  half  an  inch  in  diameter.        J  Not  stated. 
Patents.    Part  IT.    Agriculture,  1819,  p.  479. 

181 


182 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 
Table  II.  Leaves  ialccn  July  22. 


Asli  constituouts. 

Healthy. 

Affected 

■with    the 

yellows. 

Phosphates 

Lime 

9.60 

16.22 

5.90 

14.28 

21.22 

5.12 

0.60 

4.42 

13.30 

7.90 

11.60 
14.30 
5.30 
14.44 
22.28 
4.74 
0.80 
4.43 
13.20 
4.30 

Magnesia 

Potash 

Soda 

Sulphuric  acid 

Total 

98.56 

99.39 

ANALYSIS   BY   B.    KIHTLAND,    POLAND,    OHIO.  ' 

Table  II L 


Ash  constituents. 

Linihs  and  twigts 
of  th Trie  varie- 
ties. * 

3.180 
L480 
2.174 

12.  545 
2.0;0 
2.258 

23.  951 

21.099 

7.052 

.800 

.099 

33.  350 
3.812 

Silica 

Potash 

Soda 

Chloride  of  sodium 

Total 

115.000 

*  Yellow  Rareripr ,  Red  Rareripe,  and  Morissana.    Healthy. 

Equal  quantities  of  limbs  auil  t^igs  from  the  tbree  kinds  above  named  were  taken 
and  after  having  been  thorongbly  dried  (whereby  they  lost  about  44  per  cent,  of 
water)  carefully  burned  with  a  moderate  heat. 

1  ElUoWs  Fruit  Book,  by  F.  R.  Elliott,  of  Pomona  Gardens,  near  Cleveland,  Ohio. 
New  York.    1854,  pp.  263,  264 


APPENDIX    A. CHEMICAL    ANALYSES. 


183 


When  converted  into  acids  and  oxides  for  comparison,  this  analysis 
reduces  to  the  following : 


Table  IV. 


Asbconstituent.s. 

Limbs  and  twig.s 
of  three  varie- 
ties.* 

3.18 
1.48 
1.15 
0.80 

3(5.  64 
7.05 

12.55 
2.33 

10.00 
1.33 

33.35 
0.37 
3.81 

115.00 

Silica  SJO2 

Oxide  of  iion,  Fo-^Os 

Oxido  of  manganese,  MnOj . 

Lirae,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potasb,  K2O 

Soda,  Na.iO 

Phosphoric  aciil,  P2O5 

Carbon  dioxide,  CO2 

Chlorine   

Loss 

Total 

*  Yellow  Rareripe  Red  Rareripe,  and  Morissana.    Healthy. 
ANALYSES  BY  UR.  R.  C.  KEDZIE,  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE,  MICHIGAN.  ' 

Table  V. 


Ash  constituents. 

Branches     collected    at 
Benton  Harbor,  Mich., 
in  1871. 

Healthy. 

Diseased  by 
yellows. 

10.38 

3.12 

.13 

.92 

62.10 

15.71 

5.31 

1.21 

.92 

.30 

7.24 

3.82 

.21 

1.41 

06.01 

13.16 

5.05 

1.40 

.84 

.26 

Carbonate  of  soda 

Chloride  of  sodium 

Sulphate  of  lime 

Carbonate  of  magnesia 

Total 

100.  00 

100.  00 

^Annual  Report  of  the  Sec.  of  the  Mich.  State  Pom.  Society,  1871,  p.  476. 


184 


SPECIAL   REPOET    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS, 


Wlieii  coQverted  ioto  acids  and  oxides  for  comparison  with  other 
analyses,  Table  V  reduces  to  the  following: 


Table  VI. 


Asli  constituents. 

Branches    collected    at 
Benton  Harbor,  Mich., 
in  1871. 

Healthy. 

Diseased  by 
yellows. 

Silica  SiOj         -. 

1.21 
0.92 

43.67 
2.53 
7.07 
1.88 
7.20 
0.54 

34.71 

0.07 

.30 

1 
1.40 

0.84 
45.02 

2.40 

4.93 

2.33 

6.03 

0.83 
35.85 

0.11 

0.26 

Potash  KjO                

Soila  Xa-iO    

Phosphoric  acid,  PaOs 

Total 

100. 00 

100.  00 

AMAXY8ES  BY   CHARLES  A.    GOESSMAXX,    PH.    D.,    PROFESSOR   OF    CHEMISTRY  IN  THE 
MASSACHUSETTS  AGRICULTURAL   COLLEGE,  AMHERST.^ 

Table  VII. 


Ash  constituents. 

Fruit- 
Crawford's 
Early  peach, 

healihy. 

Fruit— 

Ciawford's 

Early  peach, 

diseased. 

Ferric  oxide,  FejOs 

Calcium  oxide,  CaO 

Maijnesium  oxide,  MgO . . . 

Phosphoric  acid,  P-^Os 

Potassium  oxide,  K2O 

Total 

Per  cent. 
.58 
2.64 
6.29 
16.02 
74.46 

Per  cent. 
.40 
4.68 
5.49 
18.07 
71.30 

100.  00 

100.  00 

Table  VIII. 


Ash  constituents. 

Branch— 
Crawford's 
Early  peach, 

restored. 

Branch- 
Crawford's 
Early  peach, 

diseased. 

Per  cent. 

.52 

54.52 

7.58 

1L37 

26.01 

Per  cent. 

L45 
64.23 
10.28 

8.37 
15.67 

Phosphoric  acid 

Total 

100.  CO 

100. 00 

»  Trans,  of  the  Mass.  Hort.  Socieli),  1882,  Part  I,  p.  122. 


APPENDIX    A. CHEMICAL    ANALYSES. 


185 


ANALYSES  OF  TUK  ASH  OF  HEALTHY  AND  DISEASED  PEACH  WOOD  BY  THE  CON- 
NECTICUT EXPERIMENT  STATION,  DR.  S.  W.  JOHNSON,  DIRECTOR.  E.  H.  JENKINS, 
PH.  D.,   VICE-DIRECTOR.' 

Table  IX. 


Ash  constituents. 

Twigs  of  Mountain  Rose 
peach,  growth  of  one 
vear.*      Collected  by 
■p.  M.  Augur. 

I.  Healthy. 

II.  Diseased 
by  yellows. 

Silica  and  matters  insoluble 
in  acid 

5.38 
1.09 

9.47 
2.09 

54.20                54.05    1 

Magnesia 

Potash 

9.49 

16.31 

1.18 

7.49 

13.95 

L19 

Soda 

4. 34  !                4.  68 

6.90                  6.53 

.46                    .43 

Total 

99.35 

99.88 

•  They  were  about  five-sixteenths  of  an  inch  in  diameter  at  the  butt  end  and  three-sisteonths  to 
four-sixteenths  of  an  inch  in  diameter  at  tip. 

A  more  correct  comparison  is  that  of  the  absolute  quantities  of  the  several  ash-in- 
gredients contained  in  the  same  amount  of  fresh  twigs,  as  follows  :^ 

•  Table  X. 


Ash  constituents. 

Parts  in  10,000  of— 

Healthy 
twigs. 

Diseased 
twigs. 

10.07  !              15.25 

2.04                  3.36 

101.44                86.99 

17.75 
30.55 
2.20 
8.14 
12.91 

12.  05 

22. 45 

1.91 

7.53 

10.51 

Potash 

Soda 

Phosphoric  acid 

.87                    .70 

Total  parts  of  ash 

185.  97 

160. 75 

•  Annual  Report  of  the  Conneclicut  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  1884,  p.  93. 
2  I6id.,  p.  94. 


186 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


ANALYSIS  BY  LEWIS   JICRBACH,    STATE   TXIVERSITY,    AXX   ARBOH,    MICU. 

This  analysis  wiits  made  at  my  request,  by  an  adv^anced  student  of 
chemistry,  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Albert  H.  Prescott. 

The  samples  for  analysis  were  stocky  shoots  of  one  year's  growth, 
gathered  Ai)ril  4,  1888,  from  eight-year-old  trees  in  the  orchard  of 
Michael  O'Toole,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.,  on  a  side  hill  northeast  of  the  ob- 
servatory. The  soil  is  clay  loam,  containing  stones,  and  in  places  stony. 
The  orchard  contained  about  tv/o  hundred  trees.  The  trunks  were 
black,  rough,  and  unsightly,  having  suffered  considerably  from  severe 
winters,  but  the  trees  appeared  healthy  and  were  all  perfectly  free  from 
yellows,  as  are  all  the  trees  in  that  locality.  They  bore  a  good  crop 
of  peaches  in  1887.  I  took  the  shoots  from  twelve  trees  of  three  vari- 
eties, Crawford's  Late,  Hill's  Chili,  and  Old  Mixon,  selecting  the  best 
I  could  find.  They  came  from  the  main  limbs  and  trunk,  chiefly  the 
former,  and  were  a  well  matured,  thrifty,  and  remarkably  fine-looking 
lot,  the  bark  toward  the  extremities  being  very  smooth  and  red.  They 
varied  in  length  from  24  to  G9  inches  and  in  diameter  at  the  base  from 
one-fourth  to  one-half  an  inch.  The  majority  were  about  4  feet  in 
length,  with  a  diameter  of  one-third  of  an  incli  at  base.  The  larger 
shoots  bore  a  number  of  branches  which  were  also  well  matured.  The 
season  was  not  far  advanced  and  the  buds  had  not  begun  to  push. 
After  cutting  into  short  lengths  the  branches  were  turned  over  to  the 
chemist  with  the  following  results  : 

Pet  cent. 

Weight  of  green  twigs lUO.  00 

Weight  of  twigs  after  drying  at  115°  C 55.00 

Lossof  H.:0 45.00 

Weight  of  dry  wood 100.00 

Weight  of  ash  (including  CO  2) 3.13 

Weight  of  volatile  products 96.  87 

Table  XI.  Ash  constituents. 


Ash  constituents.                      Parts  in  100. 

Silica,  Si02,  etc 

4.02 
.71 

40. 42 
2.92 

15.72 

to.  3t 
2.73 

2.i.  30 
.33 

Oxide  of  iron,  Fe203 

Lime,  CaC) 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potasli,  KaO* 

Phosphoric  acid,  PwOs 

Sulphuric  acid,  SO3 

Chlorine ..  .. 

Total 

97.26 

*  Includes  Na^O.  The  Na20  was  estimated  at  4.91,  but  owing  to  the  diflBculty  of  completely  separat- 
ing the  two  alkalies,  whereby  some  of  the  potash  may  have  been  included  with  the  soda,  it  was  thought 
be.st  to  reckon  it  all  as  potash. 

t  A  second  determination  gave  5.11. 


APPENDIX    A. CHEMICAL    ANALYSES. 

Excludiug  CO2  and  refiguring,  we  get: 

Table  XII. 


187 


Ash  constituents.                      Parts  in  100. 

Silica,  SiO^.and  otlior  iu.soluble  mat- 
ters  

5.43 

.96 

54.57 

3.94 

21. 22 

7.21 

3.69 

.45 

Lime,  CaO 

Potasli,  K.2* 

Phosphoric  acid,  PjOo 

Chlorine 

Total    

97.22 

*  Includes  NajO. 
ANALYSES  BY  A.  K.  KXORR,  ASSISTAXT  CHEMIST,  U.  S.  DKPART.MEXT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

These  analyses  were  made  in  tlie  chemical  laboratory  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  principally  from  material  collected  in  Maryland  and 
Delaware  in  1887.  The  most  important  determinations  were  carried 
through  in  duplicate,  and  anii^le  time  was  given  iii  which  to  secure  exact 
results.  Unfortunately,  in  case  of  the  wood  and  twigs  the  fresh  and  dry 
weight  were  not  ascertained,  and  by  au  accident  tbe  ash  of  the  healthy 
Delaware  peaches  was  lost  before  the  analysis  was  completed.  Soils 
were  also  collected,  but  no  analyses  have  been  made. 


Table  Xlli. — Anah/sis  of  a  section  of  the  tnuik  of  a  badlfi-diseased  tree  of  Crawford's 
Early,  from  orchard  of  F.  E.  Harper,  Still  Pond,  Md.,  No.  6  of  this  report.  Collected 
August  8,  1887.     Trunk  diameter,  4^  inches;  age,  seven  years. 


Ash  constituents. 


Unburnt  carbon 

Silica,  SiOa 

Oxide  of  iron,  Fe-^Os  . . 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  KsO 

Soda,Na20 

Phosphoric  acid,  P^Os . 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3  . . . 

Chlorine .' 

Carbon  dioxide,  CO2. . . 


Total 


First  Second 

determina-    determina 

tion.  tion. 


.32 

4.99 

.65 

44.44 

5.24 

10.56 

2.71 

6.15 

• ''"' 

Trace. 

23.63 


44.57 

5.43 

10.30 

2.75 

6.18 

.70 

Trace. 

23.73 


.32 

4.99 

.65 

44.51 

5.34 

10.43 

2.73 

6.17 

.77 

Trace. 

23.68 

99.60 


188  SPECIAL  ri:port  on  pEx\.ch  yellows. 

Excluding  CO2  and  refiguring,  we  get: 


Table  XIV. 


Ash  constituents. 

Mean. 

.42 

C.55 

.85 

58.39 

7.01 

13.  G9 

3.58 

8.10 

1.01 

Trace. 

Silica,  Si02 

Potash,  KsO 

Soda,  Naj  0 •. 

Total 

99.00 

The  height  of  this  tree  was  about  12  feet.  It  presented  a  very  pe- 
culiar appearance.  Every  branch  and  almost  every  twig  was  diseased, 
but  there  were  no  dead  limbs  and  almost  no  dead  twigs,  which  was  ev- 
idence of  recent  attack.  The  tree  was  full  of  foliage,  most  of  which 
was  dwarfed  and  lighter  green  than  that  of  the  trees  around  it.  From 
all  parts  of  this  tree — trunk,  branches,  sub  branches,  and  twigs — grew 
out  hundreds  (no  exaggeration)  of  short  pale- green  shoots  1  to  C  inches 
long,  bearing  many  pale-green,  linear  leaves,  which  were  only  1  to  3 
inches  long  by  one-fourth  to  three-fourths  inch  broad. ^  A  few  of  the 
diseased  shoots  were  longer,  1  to  2  feet,  and  branched.  This  tree  bore 
only  one  peach,  a  dwarfish,  overripe  j^remature.  At  this  date  in  that 
orchard  none  of  the  healthy  Crawford's  Early  bore  ripe  peaches.  The 
bark  on  the  trunk  and  limbs  was  sound,  and  the  collar  was  6  inches  in 
diameter.  There  were  no  injuries  by  borers,  and  had  never  been  any, 
the  bark  on  the  collar  being  entirely  sound,  except  two  recent  small 
bruises  made  by  a  hoe.  Very  careful  excavation  under  and  around  the 
stump  revealed  no  dead  roots  or  root  injuries,  but  some  of  the  rootlets 
were  dead.    Soil,  clay-loam  (8  inches);  subsoil,  yellow  clay. 

1  Healthy  full-growu  leaves  are  6  to  9  inchea  long  by  IJ  to  2  inches  broad. 


APPENDIX    A. — CHEMICAL    ANALYSES. 


189 


Table  XV. — Aiiali/sis  of  a  section  of  the  trunk  of  a  badh/  diseased  tree  of  Old  Mixon,from 
orchard  of  F.  H.  Harper,  Still  Pond,  Md. — No.  6  of  this  report.  Collected  August  10, 
1»87.     Trunl:  diameter,  5^  inches  ;  age,  seven  years. 


Ash  constituents. 


TJnburnt  carbon 

Silica,  Si02 

Oxide  of  iron,  FcaOs.. 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  K^O 

Soda,  Na-^O 

Phosjihoric  acid,  PjOj 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3.  .. 

Chloiine , 

Carbon  dioxide,  COj  .. 


Total 


First 
determina- 
tion. 


,2C 

4.18 

.09 

41.99 

4.23 

13.44 

2.40 

6.  55 

1.08 

Trace. 

24.59 


Second 

deterniina 

tion. 


42.16 
4.42 

13.60 

1.55 

6.67 

1.23 

Trace. 

24.84 


Mean. 


.26 

4.18 

.69 

42.08 

4.33 

13.52 

1.98 

G.  03 

1.16 

Trace. 

24.72 


99.55 


Excluding*  CO2  and  refiguring,  we  get — 

Table  XVI. 


Ash  constituents. 


Mean. 


TJnburnt  carbon 

Silica,  Si02 

Oxide  of  iron,  re203  .. 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  K,0 

Soda,  Na20 

Phosphoric  acid,  P2O5 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3  . . 
Chlorine 

Total 


.35 

5.56 

.92 

55.98 

5.  76 

17.99 

2.63 

8.82 

1.54 

Trace. 


99.55 


The  lieiglit  of  this  tree  was  about  14  feet;  the  top  was  well  developed 
and  symmetrical.  The  trunk  was  2  feet  long,  dividing  into  four  main 
branches.  The  bark  on  the  trunk  and  branches  was  smooth  and  per- 
fectly sound.  There  were  no  dead  branches  and  scarcely  any  dead  twigs. 
The  spring  shoots  were  well  developed  and  stocky,  all  the  leaves  being 
full  grown  and  fine  looking.  Many  of  these  shoots,  /.  e.,  those  from  the 
winter  buds,  were  1  to  2  feet  long,  and,  so  far  as  I  could  observe,  none 
of  them  showed  any  starved  leaves  or  diseased  shoots;  but  from  every 
one  of  the  four  main  limbs  I  took  quite  a  good  many  large,  rijie,  high- 
colored  peaches.  On  the  east  branch  (the  one  least  diseased)  were 
fifteen  or  twenty  healthy,  green,  half-grown  peaches,  but  even  on  this 
limb  some  of  the  smaller  branches  bore  a  few  shoots  of  the  starved 
sort,  clothed  with  pale-green,  dwarfed  leaves.     There  were  no  tufted 


190 


SPECIAL   EEPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


growths  ou  the  tree,  but  it  bore  in  all  nearly  or  quite  one  hundred  small, 
pale-green  shoots,  the  leaves  on  which  were  less  than  one  fourth  their 
proper  length  and  iiroportiouately  narrow.  These  unbranched  twigs 
had  grown  out  singly  all  over  the  tree,  except  ou  the  trunk,  the  extreme 
base  of  the  lower  limbs,  and  the  terminal  shoots  of  the  season.  There 
were  none  on  these  parts.  In  188G  the  tree  hung  full  of  fruit,  none  of 
which  was  premature  (so  said).  After  making  notes  on  the  parts  above 
ground,  the  tree  was  dug  out  and  the  collar,  roots,  and  rootlets  care- 
fully examined  ;  but  I  could  find  no  injury  by  borers,  no  dead  bark,  no 
dead  wood,  no  fungus.  The  collar  was  7  inches  in  diameter  and  i)er- 
fectly  sound.  The  abundant  roots  were  examined  outward  several 
feet  in  all  directions.  Soil,  clay  loam  (8  inches) ;  subsoil,  yellow  clay. 
This  tree  was  seven  rows  in  from  the  north  and  sixteen  in  from  the 
east  (see  Map  II).  With  the  exception  of  three  trees  in  the  same  row 
(first  two  north  and  second  one  south),  the  trees  in  the  immediate  vicin- 
ity were  healthy  and  looked  well.  Owing  to  clean  cultivation,  weeds 
Avere  not  abundant,  but  1  saw  in  the  vicinity  Plantago  onajor,  L., 
Asclepias  Cornuti,  Decaisne,  Euplwrbia  hypericifolia,  L.,  and  i)lenty  of 
Panicum  sanguinale,  L,,  but  no  Polygonums.  The  tree  had  suffered  no 
mechanical  injur}^,  and  there  appeared  to  be  nothing  whatever  in  the 
surroundings  to  account  satisfactorily  for  its  condition. 


Table  XVII. — Anahjsis  of  a  section  of  the  trunk  of  a  hndly  diseased  tree  of  Crauford''8 
Earhj,  from  orchard  of  C.  H.  Price,  Still  Pond,  Md. — No.  2  of  this  report.  Collected 
August  16,  1887.     Trunk  diameter,  4f  inches  ;  age,  seven  years. 


Ash  constituenta. 


First 
determina- 
tion. 


Second 
determina- 
tion. 


Mean. 


Unburnt  carbon 

Silica,  SiOj 

Oxide  of  iron,  FejOa  .. 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potasli,K20 

Soda,Na20 

Phosphoric  acid,  P2O5. 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3  .  -  - 

Chlorine 

Carbon  dioxide,  C0,>.  . 


.28 

3.39 

.56 

43.76 

3.04 

10.29 

1.91 

5.02 

.65 

Trace. 

31.20 


43.94 

2.80 

10.04 

1.87 

4.99 

.63 

Trace. 

31.02 


Total 


.28 

3.39 

.56 

43.85 

2.92 

10.17 

1.89 

5.01 

.64 

Trace. 

31.11 

99.82 


APPENDIX    A. CHEMICAL    ANALYSES. 


191 


Excliuling  COi  and  refiguring',  we  get — 

Table  XYIII. 


Ash  constituents. 


TTnburnt  carbon 

Silica,  SiOo 

Oxide  of  iron,  TcoOa  . . 

Lime.CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash, K„0 

Soda,  Na^O 

Pbo.spboric  acid,  P0O5 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3. . . 
Chlorine 


Mean. 


.41 

4.92 

.81 

63.70 

4.24 

14.77 

2.  75 

7.28 

.93 

Trace. 


Total . 


99.81 


The  beigUt  of  this  tree  was  about  12  feet,  and  its  spread  of  branches 
was  about  15  feet.  This  tree  looked  very  sick,  but  was  not  worse  than 
many  others  iu  the  same  orchard.  Diseased  shoots  to  the  number  of 
several  hundred  grew  from  all  parts  of  the  tree,  except  the  trunk  and 
the  base  of  the  lower  limbs.  These  pale  shoots  varied  iu  length  from 
1  to  2  inches  to  1  to  2  feet,  the  longer  ones  being  considerably  branched, 
but  not  tufted.  Scarcely  a  branch  on  the  tree  was  free  from  these 
shoots,  and  on  several  limbs  they  grew  out  numerously,  erect,  along 
the  whole  length,  giving  to  the  limb  a  very  peculiar  appearance,  such 
as  one  might  expect  to  see  if  a  tree  had  been  entirely  defoliated.  Most 
of  these  shoots  grew  from  obscure  buds  in  June,  July,  or  August.  None 
of  them  were  stocky,  like  healthy  "water-shoots."  The  leaves  they 
bore  were  small,  narrow,  and  unhealthy,  being  light  green  or  pale,  as 
if  etiolated.  Many  of  these  leaves  were  exceeding  small,  and  none 
were  full  size  or  healthy  color.  The  spring  shoots,  i.  e.,  those  from  the 
winter  buds,  had  made  an  excellent  growth  of  1  to  2  feet,  and  bore 
full-grown  dark-green  leaves,  except  a  few  in  the  center  of  the  tree. 
Even  the  bases  of  these  terminal  branches  were  beginning  to  develop 
weak  etiolated  shoots  one-half  an  inch  to  2  inches  long  from  their  leaf 
axils.  With  the  exception  of  some  quite  small  branches  and  a  few 
short  twigs  iu  the  interior,  there  were  no  dead  branches  in  any  part  of 
the  tree.  The  fruit  prematured  iu  1887,  but  was  gone  at  the  date  of 
my  examiuation,  except  two  or  three  peaches  which  were  uudersize, 
overripe,  and  nearly  tasteless.  Mr.  Price  said  the  tree  would  die  next 
season.  I  was  inclined  to  think  this  the  second  year  of  attack,  but 
was  not  certain.  The  bark  on  the  trunk  and  limbs  was  smooth  and 
perfectly  sound.  The  diameter  of  the  collar  was  6  inches.  It  had  been 
injured  by  borers,  but  not  seriously.  Farther  down,  and  well  under- 
ground, borers  had  worked  narrow  i)assages  under  the  bark  on  the 
upper  side  of  four  roots,  aggregating  a  total  bark  destruction  of  as  much 
as  7  square  inches,  but  not  seriously  affecting  any  one  root.  Except  on 
one  root,  the  wood  under  these  injuries  was  sound.  In  this  root,  a  nar- 
row strip  one-quarter  to  one-half  an  inch  wide  by  one-quarter  of  an  inch 


192 


SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


deep  and  4  inches  long  was  dry-rotted,  the  rot  extending  up  to  and  for 
a  short  distance  into  the  collar,  there  being  a  slightly  darker  ring 
between  the  sap  and  heart  wood  on  that  side.  This  root  was  2  to  3 
inches  in  diameter  and  otherwise  sound,  as  were  all  the  other  roots 
branching  from  it,  and  the  collar  itself.  From  this  tree  there  grew 
fourteen  main  roots,  varying  in  diameter  from  1  to  3  inches,  and  all 
perfectly  sound,  except  as  before  mentioned.  After  removing  the  trunk 
section  I  pulled  the  bark  from  the  collar  and  main  roots,  but  found  no 
other  injuries.  The  bark  and  cambium  seemed  normal,  but  some  of  the 
rootlets  were  dry  and  dead.  This  tree  stood  on  level  ground  on  the 
north  side  of  the  orchard.  Soil,  loose  sandy  loam  (8  to  10  inches);  sub- 
soil, a  coarse  yellow  sand,  with  only  a  slight  admixture  of  clay.  The 
soil  is  not  muddy  after  the  heaviest  rains.  The  subsoil  compacts  and 
retains  shape  in  the  fingers,  but  falls  apart  easily. 

Table  XIX.  Analysis  of  a  section  of  the  trunk  of  a  badly -diseased  tree  of  Christiana  from 
orchard  of  Dr.  W.  S.  Maxwell,  Still  Pond,  Md. — No.  1  of  this  report.  Collected  August 
17,1887.      Trunk  diameter,  i^  inches  ;  age,  five  years. 


A  all  constitaeDts 


Unbiirnt  carbon 

Silica,  SiOz 

Oxido  of  iron,  FejOi  .. 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  K2O 

Soda,  Na20 

Phosphoric  acid,  PzOs- 
Snlphnric  acid,  SO3 ... 

Chlorine. 

Carbon  dioxide,  CO2  . . 


Total 


First 
determina- 
tion. 


.21 

3.49 

.69 

42.31 

4.51 

11.20 

1.63 

6.43 

.56 

Trace. 

30.24 


Second 
determina- 
tion. 


.67 

42.14 

4.iJ0 

10.91 

1.54 

6.30 


Trace. 
30.00 


Mean. 


.21 

3.49 

.68 

42.23 

4.36 

11.06 

1.59 

6.37 

.56 

Trace. 

30.' 12 


100. 67 


Excluding  CO2  and  refiguring  we  get : 

Table  XX. 


Ash  constitnents. 


Unburnt  carbon 

Silica,  Si02 

Oxide  of  iron,  Fe203  . . 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  KjO 

Soda,  Na^O 

Pho.sphoric  acid,  PjOs 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3  .  - . 
Chlorine 

Total 


Mean. 


.30 

4.97 

.97 

60.26 

6.22 

15.78 

2.27 

9.09 

.80 

Trace. 


100.  66 


The  height  of  this  tree  was  about  12  feet,  the  well  developed  top  being 
composed  of  three  main  branches  of  nearly  equal  size.    On  this  tree 


APPENDIX    A. CHEMICAL    ANALYSES. 


193 


many  of  the  terminal  shoots  ^vere  2  feet  long,  stocky,  and  supplied  with 
full-grown,  good,  green  leaves  ;  but  on  the  bases  and  lower  and  middle 
parts  of  the  limbs  (where  ordinarily  are  no  tender  growths)  were  several 
hundred  pale-green  shoots  of  recent  appearance;  these  were  1  to  8  inches 
or  more  in  length,  were  mostly  unbranched,  and  grew  oat  singly  here  and 
there;  they  bore  small,  pale-green  leaves  more  or  less  inclined  to  roll 
inward  (upward).  There  were  no  dead  branches  and  very  few  dead 
twigs,  and  the  tree  could  not  have  been  diseased  prior  to  18SC.  The 
tree  bore  two  peaches,  one  an  overripe  premature  and  the  other  a 
haril,  dwarfed,  woolly  fruit.  Many  peaches  started  to  grow,  but  rotted 
or  dried  up  during  the  summer.  The  trunk  was  smooth  and  sound. 
On  one  limb  were  two  slight  abrasions,  from  which  gum  exuded; 
the  other  limbs  were  perfectly  sound.  After  the  tree  was  dug  out  I 
scraped  the  outer  bark  from  the  collar  and  main  roots ;  the  bark  on  both 
Avas  bright  looking  and  entirely  sound,  except  for  a  few  slight  injuries 
by  borers.  On  one  side  of  the  lower  cut  of  the  section  between  the  third 
and  fifth  annual  rings,  was  a  narrow  discolored  band — the  wood  was  not 
dozy,  and  yet  not  perfectly  sound.  On  splitting  open  the  stump  in 
several  directions  the  discolorations  were  found  to  pass  out  of  the  tree 
as  seams  between  the  main  roots  directly  under  the  crown,  i.  e.,  the  in- 
cipient decay  did  not  extend  into  the  roots.  For  location  of  this  tree, 
which  was  not  more  badly  diseased  than  many  others  in  the  same  or- 
chard, see  Map  I.    Soil,  mellow  clay-loam  (8  inches) ;  subsoil,  yellow  clay. 

Table  XXI. — Analij><is  of  three  bundles  of  i/carliitf/  shoots  from  trees  of  Crawford's  Late 
in  orchard  of  James  JF.  Green,  Magnolia,  Del. — No.  14  of  this  report.  Collected 
September  5, 1SS7. 


Ash  constituents. 


Shoots  which  grew  in  1887. 


I. 

Healthy  shoots. 


First 
cleter- 

nii- 
nalion. 


Second 
deter- 
mi- 
nation. 


Mean. 


II. 

Apparently  healthy, 

but  from 

diseased  trees. 


First  Second 

deter-  deter- 

mi-  mi- 
nation,  nation. 


Mean. 


in. 

Badly  diseased. 


First   I  Second 
deter-     deter-  j  j, 

nn-  nil-     I 

nation,   nation.  I 


Unburnt  carbon 19 

Silica.SiOj 71 

Oxide  of  iron,  FejOs  . .  i        .23 

Liiue.CaO I    40.66 

Magnesia,  MgO 4.74 

Potash, K2O I     15.67 

Soda,  iSTasO 1        .69 

Phosphoric  acid,  P2O5        7.  61 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3  ..        1.  C9 

Chlorine. Trice. 

Carbon  dioxide 28.  62 


40.49 

4.87 

15.37 

.44 

7.48 

.93 

Trace. 

28.48 


.19 

.71 

.23 

40.58 

4.81 

15.52 

.57 

7.  55 

1.01 

Trace. 

28.55 


Total. 


9.72 


.32 

1.04 

.52 

38.50 

5.70 

17.28 

.79 

7.  EO 

1.36 

Trace. 

26.86 


38.55 
5.73  j 

17.  55  ! 

1.17 

7.53 

1.38 

Trace. 

26.92 


.32 

1.04 

.52 

38.53 

5.72 

17.42 

.98 

7.52 

1.37 

Trace. 

26.89 

100. 31 


.24 

1.49 

.44 

23.90 

6.04 

31.92 

1.39 

13.86 

.96 

Trace. 

20.94 


23.85 

5.89 

31.80 

.93 

13.  72  I 

.94  1 

Trace. 

20.84 


.24 

1.49 

.44 

23.88 

5.97 

31.86 

1.16 

13.79 

.95 

Trace. 

20.89 


100. 67 


11245 -No.  9- 


-13 


194  SPECIAL    KEPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Excliidiug  CO2  aud  refiguriiig-,  we  get : 

Tahlk  XXII. 


Asb  constituents. 


Unburnt  carbon 

Silica,  SiOi 

Oxido  of  iron,  FejOj. . 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO   

Potasb,  KjO 

Soda,Na20 

Pliosphoiic  acid,  PjOj 
Sulphuric  acid,  SOj  . . 
Chlorine 

Total 


Shoots  which  grew  in  1887. 

T. 
Healthy 
shoots. 

II. 

Apparently 

healthy 

but  from 

diseased 

trees. 

iir. 

Badly  dis- 
eased. 

Mean. 

Mean. 

Mean. 

.27 

.44 

.30 

1.00 

1.42 

1.88 

.32 

.71 

.56 

56.86 

52.63 

30.13 

C.  74 

7.81 

7.53 

21.75 

23.80 

40.20 

.80 

1.35 

1.4G 

10.58 

10.27 

17.40 

1.41 

1.87 

1.19 

Trace. 

Trace. 

Trace. 

99.73 

100.  30 

100.  65 

These  shoots  were  all  from  robust  trees  on  the  south  side  of  orchard 
No.  14  of  this  report  (see  Map  IV). 

Lot  I  consisted  of  a  bundle  of  yearling  shoots  cut  from  five  perfectly 
healthy  trees,  There  were  diseased  trees  on  the  same  soil  in  the  vicin- 
ity, but  the  nearest  trees  were  healthy.  These  shoots  grew  from  the 
base  of  the  main  limbs.  Tbe  length  varied  from  2  to  5  feet,  and  the 
diameter  at  the  butt  from  one-half  of  an  inch  to  somewhat  less  than 
one-fourth  of  an  inch.  All  bore  large  dark  green,  healthy  leaves,  aud 
were  very  stocky,  vigorous  shoots. 

Lot  II  consisted  of  a  bundle  of  yearling  shoots  cut  from  six  diseased 
trees,  five  of  the  six  being  the  trees  which  furnished  Lot  HI.  They 
much  resembled  Lot  I,  but  were  less  robust.  These  apparently  healthy 
shoots  from  diseased  trees  were  unbranched  and  bore  fnll-grown  leaves 
of  healthy  color,  but  came  from  trees  bearing  numerous  rampant  yellows- 
growths  and  not  infrequently  from  near  i)oints  ou  branches  bearing 
such  starved,  wiry,  sprangly,  branched  shoots;  some  of  them  grew  side 
by  side  with  yellows  shoots,  i.  e.,  oat  of  the  same  branch  and  within  an 
inch  or  two  of  the  latter;  others  came  from  the  trunk,  above  the  collar, 
or  from  limbs  which  did  not  yet  appear  to  be  diseased. 

Lot  III  consisted  of  a  bundle  of  badly  diseased  yearling  shoots  cut 
from  six  trees  affected  by  yellows.  These  sprouts  were  2  to  4  feet  long ; 
slenderer  than  those  in  Lots  I  and  II,  aud  much  branched,  many  of  the 
branches  being  very  long  and  willowy.  The  foliage  was  pale  green  or 
yellowish  J  uot  red.    It  was  very  abundant  and  very  depauperate;  there 


APPENDIX    A. CHEMICAL    ANALYSES. 


195 


were  buudreds  of  iiariow  leaves,  not  over  1  to  2  iuches  long.  At  tbe 
ends  of  many  shoots,  where  the  lateral  buds  had  sent  out  short  branches, 
the  foliage  had  a  tufted  appearance. 

Tbe  foliage  of  each  lot  was  removed  or  became  dry  and  fell  away 
before  the  analyses  were  made. 


Table  XXIII.  Determination  of  the  quantity  of  Asii  in  fouk  samples  op 

Peaches. 

I. — I'rematare  Beers'  Smock  ^rom  old  orchard  of  W.  R.  Morris,  Dover,  Del.     Collected 

September  13,  1887. 


Per  eent 
Fresh  substance 100.  00 

Dry  substance 12.  65 

Ash 45 


II.— Healthy  ripe  Beers'  Smock  from  orchard  of  James  W.  Green,  Magnolia,  Del.,  No.  14 
of  this  report.     Collected  September  17,  1887.* 


Per  cent. 
Fresh  substance 100.00 

Dry  substance 15.19 

Ash 50 


*  The  only  compounds  determined  before  loss  of  the  ash  -were  phosphoric  acid  and  sulphuric  acid, 
two  determinations  of  each  were  made,  tlie  means  being:  P2O5— 13.46;  SO3— 0.72. 

III.— Health!/  Bilyeu's  October  from  Xew  Castle,  Cal,  taken  from  a  fruit  stand  in  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  December  19,  1888. 


Fresh  substance 

Dry  substance  (110^  C.) 

Ash  (excluding  unburnt  carbon) . 


Per  cent. 
...  100.00 

...     18.90 

.71 


lY.— Health}/  Bihjeu's  October  from  California.     Taken  from  a  fruit  stand  in  Washington, 
D.  C,  December  19,  1888;  fruit  shriveled  somewhat  and  beginning  to  rot. 


Fresh  substance 100.  00 

Dry  substance  (110°  ('.) 21.24 

Ash  (excluding  unburnt  carbon) 84 


196 


SPECIAL    REPORT    OX    PEACH    YELLOWS. 


Table  XXIV    Analysis  of  premature  Beers'  Smock  peaches,  from  orchard  of  JV.  li.  Mor- 
ris, Dover,  Del.     Collected  September  3,  1887. 


J^h  coDStituenta. 


Uuburnt  carbon 

Silica,  SiOa 

Oxide  of  iron,  Fo^Os  . 

Manganese 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  KjO 

So(ia,Na:iO 

Phosphoric  acid,  P2O5 
Sulphuric  acid,  SOj  . . 

Chlorine 

Carbon  dioxide,  00^  . 


Total 


Diseased  peaches. 


First  Second 

deterniiua-   determina- 
tion, tion. 


Mean. 


.42 

4.  U 

Trace. 

Trace. 

2.93 

3.22 

56.51 

3.36 

14.14 

1.24 

Trace. 

13.69 


Trace. 
Trace. 


57.00 
3.58 
14.16 
1.29 
Trace. 
13.94 


.42 

4.14 

Trace. 

Trace. 

2.99 

3.22 

56.75 

3.47 

14.15 

1.27 


Trac 


13.  82 
ICO. 23 


Excluding  CO2  and  refiguring  we  get: 

Table  XXV. — Diseased  peaches. 


Ash  constituents. 


Unburnt  carbon 

Silica,  SiO-2 

Oxide  of  iron,  Fe^Os  . . 

Manganese 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  K2O 

Soda,  Ka20 

Phosphoric  acid,  P2O5 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3... 
Chlorine 

Total 


Mean. 


.49 

4.80 
Trace. 
Trace. 

3.47 

3.73 
65.83 

4  02 
16.41 

1.47 
Trace. 


100. 22 


APPENDIX    A. — CHEMICAL    ANALYSES.  197 

TaBLK  XXVI. — Ash  onahisisof  tliv  California  peuclien,  Lois  III  and  If  of  Table  XXIII. 


AsU  constituents. 


Unbuint  carbon 

Silica,  Si02. 

Oxide  of  iron,  Fe^Og  . . 

Manganese 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash,  K-iO 

Soda,  NajO 

Phosphoric  acid,  P2O5. 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO:!.. 

Chlorine 

Carbon  dioxide,  CO2  . . 

Total 


First 
determina- 
tion. 


24.97 

2.46 

Trace. 

Trace. 

1.58 

2.23 

43.19 

3.04 

8.79 

1.73 

Trace. 

11.35 


Second 
determina- 
tion. 


1.53 
2.25 


3.56 

8.94 


Mean. 


24.97 

2.46 

Trace. 

Trace. 

1.56 

2.24 

43.19 

3.30 

8.87 

1.73 

Trace. 

11.42 


99.74 


Excluding  CO2,  aiid  in  this  case  iinburiit  carbon  011  account  of  the 
very  large  amount  present,  and  reflguriug,  we  get: 

Table  XXVII. 


Ash  constituents. 


Silica,  SiOa 

Oxide  of  iron,  Fe:/Oj  ^ 

Manganese 

Lime,  CaO 

Magnesia,  MgO 

Potash.  KvO 

Soda,  NaaO 

Phosphoric  acid,  PjO. 
Sulphuric  acid,  SO3  - 
Chlorine 

Total 


Mean. 

3.87 
Trace. 
Trace. 

2.46 

3.53 
68.00 

5.20 
13.97 

2.72 
Trace. 


99.75 


Appendix  B. 

legal  enactments. 

The  first  law  ever  enacted  for  the  restrictiou  of  yellows  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

THE   MICHIGAN    YELLOWS  LAW  OF   1875.1 

AN  ACT  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  contagious  disease  of  the  peach  tree  known  as  the  yellows  in 
the  counties  of  Allegan,  Van  Buren,  and  Ottawa,  and  to  provide  measures  for  the  eradication  of 
the  same. 

Section  I.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan  enact,  That  any  and  all  trees  in  tlie 
counties  of  Allegan,  Van  Buren,  and  Ottawa,  whether  peach,  almond,  apricot,  or  nec- 
tarine, infected  with  the  contagious  disease  known  as  the  yellows,  shall  he  held  to 
be  without  pecuniary  value  and  the  fruit  unfit  for  use  as  food  ;  and  that,  as  the  best 
known  means  of  preventiug  the  spread  of  such  disease,  both  tree  and  fruit  so  infected 
shall  be  subject  to  destruction  as  public  nuisances. 

Sec.  2.  In  any  township  of  the  counties  of  Allegan,  Van  Buren,  and  Ottawa  in 
which  the  contagious  disease  of  the  peach,  almond,  apricot,  or  nectarine  tree,  known  as 
the  yellows,  is  believed  to  exist  or  in  which  danger  may  be  apprehended  of  its  spread  or 
introduction,  it  shall  be  competent  for  any  five  or  more  residents  of  the  same  or  of 
an  adjoining  township  to  make  allegation  of  such  belief  or  apprehension  in  writing, 
addressed  to  the  towushii)  board  of  such  township,  and  requesting  them  to  take  meas- 
ures, as  hereinafter  provided,  to  prevent  the  spread  of  such  contagious  disease  and 
for  the  eradication  of  the  same,  which  request  must  be  filed  by  the  clerk  of  the 
township  in  which  such  applicatfou  is  made. 

Sec.  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  township  clerk,  on  the  receipt  of  the  request 
specified  in  section  2  of  this  act,  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  township  board  within  ten 
days  thereafter,  and  upon  the  assembling  of  said  board  to  lay  such  allegation  and  re- 
quest before  them  ;  whereupon  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  board  to  appoint  a  dis- 
creet and  suitable  person  as  commissioner,  who  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  pleas- 
ure of  said  board,  and  to  said  commissioner  shall  be  submitted  any  and  all  complaints 
of  the  existence  or  impending  introduction  of  said  contagious  disease,  arising  under 
the  in'ovisions  of  this  act  within  such  township. 

Sec.  4.  Complaints  of  the  existence  or  impending  introduction  of  said  disease  may 
be  made  by  any  one  or  more  residents  of  the  same  or  of  any  adjoining  township,  and 
must  be  in  writing,  addressed  to  said  commissioner,  and  must  state  distinctly  the 
premises  on  which  such  disease  is  alleged  to  exist,  or  the  name  and  residence  of  the 
owner,  and  the  place  of  distribution,  shipment,  or  exposure  for  sale  of  the  fruit  alleged 
to  be  so  infected. 

Sec.  .').  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  commissioner,  on  the  receipt  of  any  such  com- 
plaint, to  proceed  without  unnecessary  delay  to  the  examination  of  the  alleged  case 
or  cases;  and  if  he  shall  become  satisfied  of  the  actual  existence  of  the  yellows  in 
standing  trees,  he  shall  affix  a  distinguishing  mark  to  each  tree  so  atlVcted,  and  im- 

'  Local  acts,  Michigan,  session  of  1875.  Lansing :  W.  S.  George  &  Co  ,  printers,  No. 
379,  p.  726. 

198 


VPPENDIX    P,. LAWS.  199 

mediately  notify  tiie  owner  or  occupant  of  the  premises  on  whicli  siicli  trees  shall  be 
stanclius,  in  person,  or  by  leaving  a  written  notification  at  his  usual  place  of  resi- 
dence, requiring  him,  within  five  days  from  the  date  of  such  notice,  to  uproot  and 
etfectually  destroy,  by  fire  or  otherwise,  the  trees  so  designated;  and  in  the  case  of 
affected  fruit  introduced  into  the  township,  or  distributed,  shipped,  or  offered  for  sale 
therein,  he  shall  in  the  same  manner  notify  the  owner  or  person  in  charge  thereof  to 
withhold  the  same  from  distribution,  shipment,  or  sale,  and  to  destroy  the  same 
within  the  above-uamed  period  of  five  days  from  such  notice. 

Sec.  (i.  In  case  the  trees  decided  to  be  so  infected  shall  be  upon  non-resident  lands 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  commissioner  to  give  the  required  notice,  by  posting  a  copy 
of  the  same  at  some  conspicuous  place  upon  said  non-resident  premises,  aud  by  serv- 
ing a  copy  of  the  same  upon  any  resident  of  the  township  or  vicinity  who  may  be  in 
charge  of  such  premises,  and  by  directing  a  copy  of  such  notice  by  mail  to  the  owner 
of  said  premi.ses,  if  his  name  aud  residence  .shall  be  known. 

Sec.  7.  Whenever  the  person  or  p  ersons  who  shall  have  been  served  with  the  notice 
or  notices  provided  in  sections  5  and  6  of  this  act  shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  comply 
with  the  requirements  of  the  same  within  the  period  therein  prescribed,  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  said  commissioners  to  immediately  enter  upon  the  promises  and  effect- 
ually uproot  and  destroy  such  affected  or  diseased  trees  or  fruits. 

Sec.  8. — Any  owner  or  occupant  of  premises  on  which  such  condemned  trees  or 
ruit  shall  be,  who  shall  consider  himself  aggrieved  by  the  decision  of  the  commissioner, 
may,  within  three  days  from  the  date  of  the  notice  served  upon  him,  by  a  written  no- 
tification, inform  said  commissioner  of  his  purpose  to  contest  the  decision  as  to  the 
diseased  or  infected  character  of  such  trees  or  fruit ;  whereupon  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  such  commissioner  forthwith  to  notify  the  members  of  the  township  board  to  assem- 
ble on  the  premises  on  which  such  trees  or  fruit  shall  be,  on  the  day  on  which  the 
aforesaid  notice  requiring  the  destruction  of  such  diseased  trees  will  expire,  then  and 
there  to  examine  the  trees  or  fruit  in  question,  and  to  hear  such  evidence  as  shall  be 
presented  bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue;  and  if  said  township  board,  or  a  ma- 
jority thereof,  shall,  after  a  proper  hearing  of  the  case,  decide  that  said  trees  are  so 
diseased  or  affected,  they  shall  direct  said  commissioner,  without  unnecessary  delay, 
to  uproot  and  destroy  the  trees  in  question,  or  to  destroy  the  fruit,  as  the  case  may 
be,  unless  the  owner  or  occupant  shall  forthwith  proceed  to  do  so. 

Sec.  9.  In  any  case  in  which  an  owner  or  occupant  of  premises,  or  a  person  in 
charge  thereof,  shall  be  notified  by  a  commissioner  of  the  diseased  or  infectious  char- 
acter of  any  trees  or  fruit  thereon,  whether  grown  thereon  or  imported,  and  in 
which  such  owner,  occupant,  or  person  in  charge  shall  refuse  or  neglect,  in  com- 
pliance with  such  notice,  after  its  confirmation  by  the  township  board,  to  destroy 
such  trees  or  fruit,  the  expenses  of  the  commissioner  in  effecting  such  destruction, 
including  the  cost  of  the  assembling  of  the  township  board  and  of  the  evidence 
necessarily  produced  in  the  case,  shall  be  a  charge,  firstly,  upon  the  defendant  in  the 
case  ;  or,  secondly,  upon  the  premises  upon  which  such  trees  or  fruit  shall  be  gi'own. 

Skc.  10.  Any  owner,  occupant,  or  person  in  charge  of  premises  or  fruit  who  shall 
refuge  or  neglect  to  comply  with  the  order  of  the  commissioner  for  the  destruction 
of  diseased  or  affected  trees  or  fruit,  upon  the  confirmation  of  such  order  by  the 
township  board,  as  provided  in  this  act,  shall  be  liable  to  a  fine,  to  be  imposed  at  the 
discretion  of  such  township  board,  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  with  costs,  to 
include  those  of  the  commissioner  and  of  the  township  board ;  the  same  to  be  certified 
to  the  supervisor  of  the  township,  and  by  him  collected  in  an  action  of  assumpsit,  be- 
fore any  justice  of  the  peace  having  jurisdiction  of  the  case;  or,  upon  the  order  of  the 
board,  to  be  included  in  the  next  annual  tax  list,  and  collected  as  a  tax  upon  the 
premises  upon  which  such  trees  or  fruit  shall  be  grown. 

Sec.  11.  The  proceeds  of  all  fines  accruing  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be 
paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  township,  to  the  credit  of  the  general  fund  ;  and  the 
commissioner  and  the  members  of  the  township  board  shall,  for  services  rendered 


200  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

under  the  iirovisious  of  this  act,  be  allowed  the  same  rate  per  dieiii  that  is  by  law 
allowed  for  ordinary  sessions  of  said  board,  which  shall  be  paid  from  said  general 
fnnd.  * 

Sec.  12.  This  act  shall  take  immediate  effect. 

Approved  May  1,  1875. 

This  act  was  in  force  four  years.  It  was  superseded  by  the  act  of 
1879. 

THE   MICHIGAN  YELLOWS   LAW   OF   ld79.1 

AN  ACT  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  yellows,  a  contajjious  disease  among  peach,  nectarine,  and  other 
trees,  and  to  extirpate  the  same,  and  to  repeal  the  local  act  379  of  ihe  session  laws  of  1875,  approved 
May  1,  1875. 

Section  1.  The 2)copIe  of  the  Stale  of  Michigan  enact,  That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for 
any  person  to  keep  any  peach,  nectarine,  or  other  trees  infected  with  the  contagions 
disease  known  as  the  yellows,  or  to  offer  for  sale  or  shipment,  or  to  sell  or  ship  to 
others,  any  of  the  fruit  thereof;  and  uo  damage  shall  be  awarded  in  any  court  of  this 
State  for  the  destruction  of  such  diseased  trees  and  fruit,  as  hereinafter  provided  ; 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  citizen  as  soon  as  he  becomes  aware  of  the  existence 
of  such  disease  in  any  tree  or  fruit  owned  by  him,  to  forthwith  destroy  or  cause  the 
same  to  be  destroyed. 

Sec.  2.  In  any  township  in  this  State  iu  which  such  contagious  disease  exists,  or  in 
■which  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  it  exists,  or  danger  may  be  justly  apprehended 
of  its  introduction  and  spread,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  five  or  more  resident  free- 
holders of  the  same  or  of  any  adjoining  township  to  sot  forth  sucli  fact,  belief,  or  ap- 
prehension in  a  petition  addressed  to  the  board  of  such  township,  requesting  thuni 
to  appoint  three  commissioners,  as  hereinafter  provided,  to  prevent  the  spread  oi-  in- 
troduction of  such  disease,  and  to  eradicate  the  same,  which  petition  shall  be  tiled 
with  and  become  a  part  of  the  records  of  the  township  to  which  such  application  is 
made. 

Sec.  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  township  clerk,  on  receipt  of  the  petition 
specified  in  section  2  of  this  act,  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  township  board  within  ten 
days  thereafter,  and  upon  the  assembling  of  said  board  to  lay  such  petition  before 
ihem,  whereupon  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  board,  upon  the  hearing  of  said  petition, 
to  appoint  three  competent  resident  freeholders  of  such  township  as  commissioners, 
who  shall  hold  their  office  during  the  x>leasure  of  said  board,  and  such  order  of  ap- 
pointment and  revocation,  when  revoked,  shall  he  entered  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  township. 

Sec.  4.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  commissioners,  within  ten  days  after  appoint- 
ment as  aforesaid,  to  tile  their  acceptance  of  the  same  with  tbc  clerk  of  said  town- 
ship, and  said  clerk  shall  be  ex  officio  clerk  of  said  board  of  commissioners,  and  he 
shall  keej)  a  correct  record  of  the  i^roceedings  of  said  board  in  a  book  to  be  provided 
for  the  purpose,  and  shall  file  and  preserve  all  papers  pertaining  to  the  duties  of  said 
commissioners,  or  either  of  them,  which  shall  be  a  part  of  the  records  of  said  town- 
ship. 

Sec.  5.  Any  one  or  more  residents  of  the  same  or  adjoining  township  may  make 
complaint  on  writing  and  on  oath,  addressed  to  said  commissioners,  delivering  the 
same  to  either  of  them,  setting  forth  that  said  disease  exists,  or  that  he  has  good  rea- 
son to  believe  it  exists,  upon  lands  within  the  township  in  which  said  commissioners 
reside,  designating  the  same  with  reasonable  certainty,  or  that  trees  or  fruit  infected 
with  such  disease  are  offered  for  sale  or  shi^jment,  or  have  been  introduced  therein, 
designating  the  person  in  whose  possession  or  under  whose  control  such  trees  or  fruit 
are  believed  to  be. 

^Public  Acts,  Michigan,  session  of  1879.  Lansing:  W.  S.  George  &  Co.,  printers. 
No.  32,  p.  27. 


APPENDIX    B.— LAWS.  201 

Sec.  G.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  tbe  commissioner  to  whom  such  complaint  is  deliv- 
ered to  proceed  without  unnecessary  delay  to  examine  the  trees  or  fruit  so  designated, 
and  if  he  shall  become  satislied  that  the  contagious  disease  actually  infects  such  trees 
or  fruit  he  shall,  without  injuring  the  same,  fix  a  distinguishing  mark  upon  each  of 
the  trees  so  infected,  and  immediately  notify  the  person  to  whom  such  trees  belong, 
personally  or  by  leaving  a  written  notice  at  bis  usual  place  of  residence,  if  he  be  a 
resident  of  the  county,  and  if  such  owner  be  a  non-resident  ot  such  county,  then  by 
leaving  the  same  with  the  person  in  possession  of  such  trees,  requiring  him,  within 
fifteen  days,  Sundays  excepted,  from  the  date  of  the  service  of  said  notice,  to  effect- 
ually remove  and  destroy,  by  fire  or  other  means,  the  trees  so  marked,  and  in  case  of 
fruit  so  infected  such  notice  shall  require  the  person  in  whose  possession  or  control  it 
is  found  to  immediately  destroy  the  same  or  cause  it  to  be  done. 

Sec.  7.  If  any  person  neglects  to  destroy,  or  cause  to  be  destroyed,  such  diseased 
fruit,  after  such  examination  and  notification,  but  sells,  ships,  or  disposes  of  the  same 
to  others,  such  person  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  punished  by  a 
fine  not  exceeding  a  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  ex- 
ceeding three  months,  or  both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court;  and  any  justice  of  the 
peace  in  the  township  where  such  fruit  is  sold,  shipped,  or  disposed  of,  as  aforesaid, 
shall  have  jurisdiction  thereof. 

Sec.  8.  Whenever  any  person  shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  comply  with  the  notice  to 
remove  and  destroy  the  trees  marked  by  the  commissioner  as  aforesaid,  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  said  commissioner  forthwith  to  notify  the  other  commissioners  to  assem- 
ble with  himself  on  the  premises  on  which  said  trees  shall  be,  on  the  fifteenth  day, 
Sundays  excepted,  after  he  shall  have  made  service  of  such  notice,  and  then  and  there 
personally  to  examine  the  trees  in  question,  and  the  evidence  bearing  on  the  exist- 
ence of  said  disease  ;  and  if  said  commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall,  after  a 
proper  examination  of  the  matter,  decide  that  said  trees  are  infected  with  said  disease, 
they  shall,  in  case  such  trees  so  infected  do  not  exceed  six  in  number,  order  the  same 
to  be  removed  and  destroyed  forthwith,  or  cause  it  to  be  done,  employing  all  neces- 
sary aid  for  that  purpose,  if  the  person  in  charge  thereof  refuses  or  neglects  to  do  so; 
and  in  case  the  trees  found  to  be  infected  shall  exceed  six  in  number,  and  the  owner 
thereof  shall,  upon  the  serving  of  said  notice,  refuse  or  neglect  to  remove  the  same 
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  act  and  terms  of  such  notice,  then  and  in 
that  case  the  said  commissioners  shall  petition  the  circuit  court  of  the  county  for  an 
order  directing  and  empowering  said  commissioners  to  remove  or  catise  to  be  removed 
such  infected  trees,  and  the  courts  shall  direct  the  defendant  to  be  summoned  and  an 
issue  joined  therein,  and  the  cause  to  be  tried  in  a  summary  manner,  and  if  it  shall 
appear  on  said  trial  that  said  trees  are  so  infected,  he  shall  grant  the  order  prayed  for, 
with  costs  of  prosecution  against  the  owner  of  such  trees;  but  in  case  such  trees  are 
found  not  to  be  infected,  he  shall  dismiss  said  proceeding,  with  costs  to  be  taxed 
against  the  township  in  which  such  commissioners  reside. 

Sec.  9.  Every  person  who  shall  wilfully  refuse  or  neglect  to  comply  with  the  notice 
of  the  commissioners,  as  hereinbefore  provided,  to  remove  and  destroy  said  diseased 
trees,  shall  be  liable  for  all  the  costs,  charges,  and  disbursements  made  upon  the  pro- 
ceedings of  said  commissioners  and  of  the  board  of  commissioners  to  eftect  such  re- 
moval and  destruction,  together  with  a  penalty  of  five  dollars  for  each  and  every  day, 
but  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars  in  all,  such  trees  remain  uuderstroyed,  which 
costs,  charges,  disbursements,  and  penalty  shall  be  recovered  of  him  in  an  action  of 
trespass  upon  the  case,  in  the  form  of  assumpsit,  brought  and  prosecuted  by  the  super^ 
visor,  in  the  name  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  township,  and  before  any  justice  of  peace 
therein  in  the  same  manner  and  with  like  proceedings  as  are  ajiplicable  in  civil  cases 
before  such  courts,  and  upon  judgment  being  rendered  in  favor  of  said  townshiii,  the 
said  justice  of  the  peace  shall  issue  execution  against  the  defendant  iu  said  action- 
which  may  be  stayed,  as  in  other  cases,  but  when  collected,  he  shall  pay  the  amount 
thereof  forthwith  to  the  treasurer  of  said  township  to  the  credit  of  the  general  fund. 


202  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

Sec.  10.  The  form  of  the  dechiration  in  any  suit  instituted  as  aforesaid  may  be  a8 

follows,  to  wit:  In  justice  court  before  A  B,  justice  of township,  county , 

the  township  of  ,  said  county,  complains  of  C  D  in  an  action  of  trespass  upon 

the  case,  and  says  that  C  D  justly  owes  the  said  township dollars,  being  the 

amount  of  expenses  incurred  by  said  township  in  the  removal  and  destruction  of 
trees  infected  with  the  yellows,  from  (designating  the  premises  with  reasonable  cer- 
tainty), and  the  penalty  incurred  by  said  C  D  for  not  removing  and  destroying  said 
trees  pursuant  to  an  act  entitled  "An  act  to  prevent  the  spread  of  yellows,  a  conta- 
gious disease  among  peach,  nectarine,  and  other  trees,  and  to  extirpate  the  same," 
wherefore  the  said  township  brings  suit. 

A  B,  Supervisor. 

Sec.  11  The  commissioners  shall  be  allowed  for  their  services  under  this  act  $2  for 
each  full  day,  and  $i  for  each  half  day,  and  their  other  charges  and  disbursements, 
hereunder  to  be  audited,  as  well  as  any  other  charges  and  disbursements  under  this 
act,  by  the  township  board. 

Sec.  12.  In  all  suits  and  prosecutions  under  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  it  shall 
be  necessary  to  prove  that  such  trees  or  fruit  were  diseased  or  infected. 

Sec.  13.  [Repeals  act  379  of  local  laws  of  1875.] 

Sec.  14.  This  act  shall  take  immediate  effect. 

Approved  April  4,  1879. 

This  law  was  iu  force  two  years,  being  superseded  by  the  present  law, 
which  is  as  follows: 

YELLOWS   LAW  OF   1881.' 

AN  ACT  to  prevent  ttie  spread  of  the  yellows,  a  contagious  disease  among  peacli,  almond,  apricot, 
and  nectarine  trees,  and  to  provide  measures  for  tlie  eradication  of  the  same,  and  to  repeal  .act  32  of 
the  session  laws  of  1879. 

Section  1.  The  people  of  the  State  of  Michigan  enact,  That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for 
any  person  to  keep  any  peach,  almond,  apricot,  or  nectarine  tree  infected  with  the 
contagious  disease  known  as  the  yellows,  or  to  offer  for  sale  or  shipment,  or  to  sell  or 
ship  to  others  any  of  the  fruit  thereof;  thfit  both  tree  and  fruit  so  infected  shall  be 
subject  to  destruction  as  public  nuisances,  as  hereinafter  provided,  and  no  damages 
shall  be  awarded  in  any  court  in  this  State  for  entering  upon  the  premises  and  de- 
stroying such  diseased  trees  and  fruit,  if  done  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
this  act ;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  person,  as  soon  as  he  becomes  aware  of  the 
existence  of  such  disease  in  any  tree  or  fruit  owned  by  him,  to  forthwith  destroy  or 
cause  the  same  to  be  destroyed. 

Sec.  2.  In  any  township  in  this  State  in  which  such  contagions  disease  exists,  or  in 
which  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  it  exists,  or  danger  may  be  justly  apprehended  of 
its  introduction,  as  soon  as  such  information  becomes  known  to  the  township  board  or 
any  member  thereof,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  board  to  appoint  forthwith  three 
competent  freeholders  of  said  township  as  commissioners,  who  shall  hold  office  during 
the  pleasure  of  said  board,  and  such  order  of  appointment  and  revocation  shall  be  en- 
tered at  large  upon  the  township  records. 

Sec.  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  commissioners,  within  ten  days  after  appointment 
as  aforesaid,  to  file  their  acceptance  of  the  same  with  the  clerk  of  said  township,  and 
said  clerk  shall  be  ex  officio  clerk  of  said  board  of  commissioners,  and  he  shall  keep  a 
correct  record  of  the  proceedings  of  said  board  in  a  book  to  be  provided  for  the  pur- 
pose, and  shall  file  and  preserve  all  papers  pertaining  to  the  duties  and  actions  of 
said  commissioners,  or  either  of  them,  which  shall  be  a  part  of  the  records  of  said 
township. 

^Public  acta,  Michigan,  sension  of  1881.  Lansiug:  VV.  S.  George  &,  Co.,  State 
printers.  No.  174,  p.  210.  See  also  HowelVs  Annotated  Statutes,  Michigan,  1662,  Vol. 
I,  chapter  66,  p.  587. 


APPENDIX    B. LAWS.  203 

Sec.  4.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  couiraissioners,  or  auy  of  them,  upon  or  without 
complaint,  whenever  it  conies  to  their  notice  that  the  disease  known  as  yellows  exists 
or  is  snpposed  to  exist  within  the  limitsof  their  township,  to  proceed  without  delay 
to  examine  the  trees  or  fruit  snpposed  to  be  infected,  and  if  the  disease  is  found  to 
exist,  a  distinguishing  mark  shall  be  placed  upon  the  diseased  trees  and  the  owner 
notified,  personally  or  by  written  notice  left  at  his  usual  place  of  residence,  or,  if  the 
owner  be  a  non-resident,  by  leaving  the  notice  with  the  person  in  charge  of  the  trees 
or  fruit,  or  the  person  in  whose  possession  said  trees  or  fruit  may  be.  The  notice  shall 
contain  a  simple  statement  of  the  facts  as  found  to  exist,  with  an  order  to  etiectually 
remove  and  destroy,  by  tire  or  otherwise,  the  trees  so  marked  and  designated  within 
ten  days,  Sundays  excepted,  from  the  date  of  the  service  of  the  notice;  and  in  case  of 
fruit  so  infected,  such  notice  shall  require  the  person  in  whose  possession  or  control  it 
is  found  to  immediately  destroy  the  same  or  cause  it  to  be  done.  Such  notice  and  order 
to  be  signed  by  the  full  board  of  commissioners. 

Sec.  5.  Whenever  any  person  shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  comply  with  the  order  to 
remove  and  destroj'  the  trees  marked  by  the  commissioners,  as  aforesaid,  it  shall  be- 
come the  duty  of  the  commissioners»to  cause  said  trees  to  be  removed  and  destroyed 
forthwith,  employing  all  necessary  aid  for  that  purpose,  the  expense  for  such  removal 
and  destruction  of  trees  to  be  a  charge  against  the  township;  and  for  the  purpose  of 
said  removal  and  destruction  the  said  commissioners,  their  agents  and  workmen,  shall 
have  the  right  and  power  to  enter  upon  any  and  all  premises  within  their  township. 

Sec.  6.  If  any  person  neglects  to  remove  and  destroy,  or  cause  to  be  removed  and 
destroyed,  as  aforesaid,  such  diseased  trees  or  fruit,  after  such  examination  and  notifi- 
cation, and  within  the  time  hereinbefore  specified,  such  persons  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars, 
or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  three  months  or  both,  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  court,  and  any  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  township  where  such  fruit 
is  sold,  shipped,  or  disposed  of,  as  aforesaid,  shall  have  jurisdiction  thereof. 

Sec.  7.  The  commissioners  shall  be  allowed  for  services,  under  this  act,  two  dol- 
lars for  each  full  day  and  one  dollar  for  each  half  day,  and  their  other  charges  and 
disbursements  hereunder  to  be  audited,  as  well  as  any  other  charges  and  disburse- 
ments under  this  act,  by  the  township  board,  all  of  which  costs,  charges,  expenses, 
and  disbursements  may  be  recovered  by  the  township  from  the  owner  of  said  diseased 
fruit,  or  from  the  owner  of  the  premises  on  which  said  diseased  trees  stood,  in  an  action 
of  assumpsit. 

Sec.  8.  [Repeals  act  32  of  1879.] 

Approved  May  31, 1881. 

In  1881,  the  legislative  assembly  of  the  proviuce  of  Ontario  passed 
the  following  yellows  law  :' 

FIRST   ONTARIO   LAW. 
AK  ACT  to  prevent  the  spread  of  yellows  among  peach,  nectarine,  and  other  trees. 

(Assented  to  4th  March,  1881.) 

Her  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  legislative  assembly  of  the 
province  of  Ontario,  enacts  as  follows  : 

1.  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  person  to  keep  any  peach,  nectarine,  or  other  trees 
infected  with  the  contagious  disease  known  as  the  yellows,  or  to  offer  for  sale  or  ship- 
ment, or  to  sell  or  ship  any  of  the  fruit  thereof;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  every 
person,  so  soon  as  he  becomes  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  said  disease  in  auy  trees 
or  fruit  owned  by  him,  to  burn  the  same  forthwith. 

^Statutes  of  the  province  of  Ontario,  Canada,  ^\th  Victoria.  lt<8l,  Toronto,  Ont. 
Printed  by  John  Notraan.     1881,  chapter  28,  p.  283, 


204         SPECIAL  REPORT  ON  PEACH  YELLOWS, 

2.  AVbeu  the  said  disease  exists,  or  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  it  exists,  or 
when  there  is  good  reason  to  apprehend  its  introduction,  any  five  or  more  free-hohlers 
residing  in  the  same  or  an  adjoining  municipality  may  petition  the  council  thereof  to 
appoint  an  inspector  to  prcvei't  the  spread  or  introduction  of  the  said  disease. 

3.  On  rrceipt  of  such  petition  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  clerii  of  the  municipality 
to  call  a  meeting  of  the  council  within  ten  days  thereafter  for  the  consideration  of 
the  same,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  council,  if  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  the 
facts  stated  in  the  i^etitiou,  to  appoint  an  inspector  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out 
the  provisions  of  this  act  and  to  provide  for  his  remuneration. 

4.  It  shall  be  the  dutj'  of  the  inspector  to  examine  the  peach  and  nectarine  orchards 
of  the  municipality  once  between  the  middle  and  end  of  July  and  once  between  rho 
middle  and  end  of  August  every  year,  and  he  shall  keep  a  correct  record  of  the  con- 
dition of  each  orchard  and  of  the  time  spent  in  the  performance  of  his  duty,  which 
time  shall  not  exceed  six  days  during  each  period  of  inspection,  and  shall,  after  each 
such  inspection,  file  the  said  record  with  the  clerk  of  the  municipality. 

5.  In  case  written  complaint  is  made  to  the  inspector  that  the  said  disease  exists, 
or  that  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  it  exists,  within  the  municipality  in  any  locality 
described  in  such  comiilaint  with  reasonable  certainty,  or  that  infected  trees  or  fruit 
are  otfered  for  sale  or  shipment,  or  have  been  imported  into  the  munici]Jality  by  auy 
person  named,  such  inspector  shall,  without  unnecessary  delay,  proceed  to  examine 
the  trees  or  fruit  so  designated. 

G.  The  inspector,  if  satisfied  that  the  disease  has  actually  infected  any  tree  or  fruit, 
shall  afiix  a  distinguishing  mark  upon  each  tree  so  infected,  and  shall  immediately 
give  notice  in  writing  to  the  owner  or  occui)ierof  the  laud  whereon  the  said  infected 
trees  are  growing,  requiring  him,  within  seven  days  from  the  receipt  of  said  notice, 
to  burn  the  trees  so  marked  as  hereinbefore  directed ;  and  in  case  of  fruit  so  infected, 
such  notice  shall  require  the  person  in  whose  possession  it  is  found  to  immediately 
destroy  the  same. 

7.  In  case  auy  owner  or  occupier  refuses  or  neglects  to  destroy  such  diseased  trees 
or  fruit  after  such  examination  and  notification  he  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  liable 
to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  five  dollars  nor  more  than  twenty  dollars,  for  every  such 
offense. 

8.  Every  offense  against  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  punished,  and  the  penalty 
imposed  for  each  offense  shall  be  recovered  and  levied,  on  summary  conviction,  before 
any  justice  of  the  peace,  and  all  fines  collected  shall  be  paid  as  follows:  One-half  to 
the  person  laying  the  information  or  complaint,  and  the  residue  to  the  treasurer  of 
the  municipality  in  which  the  oft'euse  is  committed,  for  the  use  of  the  municipality. 

This  act  was  repealed  in  1884,  tbe  followiug  taking  its  place :  ^ 

•*  SECOND   ONTARIO   LAW. 

AN  ACT  to  prevent  the  spread  of  noxious  weeds  and  of  diseases  affecting  fruit  trees. 

(Assented  to  25th  March,  1884.) 

1.  [This  section  repeals  former  acts.] 

2.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  owner  of  land,  or  the  occupier  thereof,  if  the  owner 
is  not  resident  within  the  local  municipality  wherein  the  same  is  situated,  (I)  to 
cut  down  or  destoy  all  the  Canada  thistles,  ox-eye  daisies,  wild  oats,  rag-weed,  and 
burdock  growing  on  his  land  to  which  this  act  may  be  extended  by  by-law  of  the 
municipality,  so  often  each  and  every  year  as  is  sufficient  to  prevent  the  ripening  of 
their  seed  ;  (2)  to  cut  out  and  burn  all  the  black-knot  found  on  plum  or  cherry  trees 
on  his  land,  so  often  each  and  every  year  as  it  shall  appear  on  such  trees;  and  (3)  to 
cut  down  and  burn  any  peach,  nectarine,  or  other  trees  on  his  laud  infected  with  the 
disease  known  as  the  yellows,  and  to  destroy  all  the  fruit  of  trees  so  infected. 

^Statutes  of  Ontario,  Canada,  47th  Victoria,  1884,  chapter  37,  p.  119.  Toronto, 
Printed  by  John  Notman. 


APPENDIX    B. LAWS.  205 

3.  The  council  of  any  city,  town,  township,  or  incorporated  village,  may  by  by- 
laws extend  the  operation  of  this  act  to  any  other  weed  or  weeds,  or  to  any  other  dis- 
ease of  fruit  trees  or  fruit  which  they  declare  to  be  noxious  to  husbandry  or  gardening 
iu  the  municipality ;  and  all  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  apply  to  such  noxious 
weeds  and  diseases  as  if  the  same  were  herein  enumerated. 

Any  such  council  may,  and  upon  a  petition  of  fiftj'or  more  ratepayers  shall,  appoint 
at  least  oue  inspector  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  this  act  in  the  municipality,  and 
fix  the  amount  of  remuneration,  fees,  or  charge  he  is  to  receive  for  the  performance 
of  his  duties;  and  iu  case  a  vacancy  shall  occur  in  the  oliice  of  inspector,  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  council  to  fill  the  same  forthwith. 

[Paragraph  3  provides  that  the  council  of  any  township  may  exempt  waste  or  un- 
occupied lauds.] 

[Sections  4,  5,  6,  7,  and  8  relate  entirely  to  weeds.] 

9.  If  written  complaint  be  made  to  the  inspector  that  yellows  or  black-knot  exist 
within  the  municipality,  or  in  any  locality  described  iu  such  complaint  with  reason- 
able certainty,  he  shall  proceed  to  examine  the  fruit-trees  in  such  locality,  and  if 
satisfied  of  the  presence  of  either  disease  he  shall  immediately  give  notice  iu  writing 
to  the  owner  or  occupant  of  the  land  whereon  the  atiected  trees  are  growing,  requir- 
ing him  within  five  days  from  the  receipt  of  said  notice  to  deal  with  such  trees  in 
the  manner  provided  bj'  section  2  of  this  act. 

10.  Any  owner  or  occupant  of  laud  who  refuses  or  neglects  to  cut  down  or  destroy 
any  of  the  said  noxious  weeds,  after  notice  given  by  the  inspector,  as  provided  by 
section  4,  or  who  knowingly  sutlers  any  of  the  said  noxious  weeds  to  grow  thereon 
and  the  seed  to  ripen  so  as  to  cause  or  endanger  the  spread  thereof,  or  who  suiters  any 
black-knot  to  remain  on  plum  or  cherry  trees,  or  keeps  any  peach,  nectarine  or  other 
trees  infected  with  yellows  or  the  fruit  of  trees  so  infected,  shall  upon  conviction  be 
liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  five  or  more  than  twenty  dollars  for  every  such  offense. 

[Paragraph  2  relates  to  weeds.] 

Any  person  who  knowingly  offers  for  sale  or  shipment,  or  sells  or  ships  the  fruit  of 
trees  infected  with  yellows  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than 
five  nor  more  than  twenty  dollars. 

Every  inspector,  overseer  of  highways,  or  other  officer,  who  neglects  to  discharge 
the  duties  imposed  on  him  by  this  act  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  liable  to  a  fine  of 
not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  twenty  dollars. 

11.  Every  offense  agaiust  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  punished  and  the  pen- 
alty imposed  for  each  offense  shall  be  recovered  and  levied,  on  summary  conviction, 
before  any  justice  of  the  peace;  and  all  fines  imposed  shall  be  paid  to  the  treasurer 
of  the  municipality  in  which  the  offence  is  committed,  for  the  use  of  the  municipality. 

12.  The  council  of  every  municipality  in  Ontario  shall  require  its  inspector,  over- 
seer of  highways,  and  other  oflaceis  to  faithfully  discharge  all  their  duties  uuder  this 
act. 

13.  [This  section  relates  to  weeds.] 

The  State  of  CaliforDia  in  1885  enacted  the  following  law,  which  by 
a  somewhat  free  interpretation  of  the  term  "  disinfection,"  might  per- 
haps be  made  to  apply  to  yellows  should  there  be  any  occasion,  and 
by  a  very  slight  amendment,  or  perhaps  without  any  change,  could  cer- 
tainly be  used  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  nursery-stock  from  in- 
fected di.stricts.^ 

» Statutes  and  amendments  to  the  Codes,  California.  Extra  session,  1884-'85.  Sacra- 
mento, 1885.     James  J.  Ayers,  superintendent  State  printing. 


206  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

THE   CALIFORNIA  FKUIT   LAW. 

AN  ACT  to  prevent  the  spreading  of  fruit  and  fruit-tree  pesta  and  diseases,  and  to  provide  for  their 

extirpatiou. 

Aitprovetl  March  9,  1885. 

The  people  of  the  State  of  California,  represented  in  Senate  and  assembly,  do  en- 
act as  follows : 

Section  1.  It  shall  be  the  dutj*  of  every  owner,  possessor,  or  occupier  of  an  or- 
chard, nursery,  or  laud  where  fruit-trees  are  grown  within  this  State,  to  disinfect  all 
fruit-trees  grown  on  such  lands  infested  with  any  insect  or  insects,  or  the  germs 
thereof,  or  infested  by  any  contagious  disease  known  to  be  injurious  to  fruit  or  fruit- 
trees,  before  the  removal  of  the  same  from  such  premises  for  sale,  gift,  distribution, 
or  transportation.  Fruit-boxes  which  have  been  used  for  shipping  fruit  to  any  des- 
tination are  hereby  required  to  be  disinfected  previous  to  their  being  again  used  for 
any  purpose;  all  boxes  returned  to  any  orchard,  store-room,  sales-room,  or  any  place 
used  or  to  be  used  for  storage,  shipping,  or  any  other  purpose,  must  be  disinfected 
within  three  days  after  their  return  ;  and  any  and  all  persons  failing  to  comply  with 
the  requirements  of  this  section  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.  All  packages, 
known  as  free  jiackages,  must  be  destroyed  or  disinfected  before  being  again  used. 

Sec.  2.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  owner,  lessee,  or  occupier  of  any  orchard  within 
this  State,  to  gather  all  frnit  infested  by  the  insects  known  as  the  codlin  moth,  peach 
moth,  red  spider,  plum  wevil,  and  kindred  noxions  insects,  their  larvie  or  pupie, 
which  has  fallen  from  the  tree  or  trees,  as  often  as  once  a  week,  and  dispose  of  or 
destroy  the  same  in  such  a  manner  as  to  efi'ectually  destroy  all  such  insects,  their 
larvje  or  pupie.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  inspector  of  fruit  pests,'  or  quarantine 
guardian,  to  inspect  fruit  packages,  and  all  trees  and  plants,  cuttings,  grafts,  and 
scions,  known  or  believed  to  be  infested  by  any  insect  or  insects,  orthe  germs  thereof, 
or  their  eggs,  larvic  or  pupa',  injurious  to  fruit  or  fruit-trees,  or  infected  with  any  dis- 
ease liable  to  spread  contagion,  imported  or  brought  into  this  State  from  any  foreign 
country,  or  from  any  of  the  United  States  or  Territories,  and  if,  upon  inspection,  such 
fruit,  or  fruit  packages,  are  found  to  be  infected  or  infested,  it  shall  be  a  misdemeanor 
to  offer  the  same  for  sale,  gift,  distribution,  or  transportation,  unless  they  shall  be 
first  disinfected. 

Sec.  3.  Every  person  shipping  fruit-trees,  scions,  cuttings,  or  plants,  from  any 
orchard,  nursery,  or  other  place  where  they  were  grownor  produced,  shall  place  upon 
or  securely  attach  to  each  box,  package,  or  iiarcel  containing  such  fruit-trees,  scions, 
cuttings,  or  plants,  a  distinct  mark  or  label,  showing  the  name  of  the  owner  or  shiji- 
per,  and  the  locality  where  produced.  And  any  person  who  shall  cause  to  be  shipped, 
transported,  or  removed  from  any  locality  declared  by  the  State  board  of  horticulture 
to  be  infested  with  fruit-tree  or  orchard  pests,  or  infected  with  contagious  diseases 
injurious  to  trees,  plants,  or  fruits,  unless  the  same  shall  have  beeu  previously  disin- 
fected, shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor.  Disinfection  shall  be  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  State  board  of  horticulture,  or  the  inspector  of  fruit  pests.  Wheu  disinfected, 
the  fact  shall  be  stamped  upon  each  box,  package,  or  separate  parcel  of  fruit-trees, 
scions,  cuttings,  or  plants ;  and  any  person  who  shall  cause  to  be  shipped,  trans- 
ported, or  removed,  any  such  box,  parcel,  or  package  from  a  quarantine  district  or 
locality^  not  bearing  such  stamp,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  may  bo  pun- 
ished by  fine,  as  provided  in  section  six  of  this  act.  Any  person  who  shall  falsely  cause 
such  stamp  to  be  used,  or  shall  imitate  or  counterfeit  auy  stamp  or  device  used  for 
such  purpose  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Sec.  4.  It  shall  be  the  special  duty  of  each  member  of  the  State  board  of  horticult- 
ure to  see  that  the  provisions  of  this  act  are  carried  out  within  his  resjiective  hor- 
ticultural district,  and  all  offenders  duly  punished. 

'  This  inspector  receives  a  compensation  of  $200  per  month  and  liii*  traveling  ex.- 
penses,  which  must  not  exceed  |l,000  annually. 


APPENDIX    B LAWS.  207 

Sec.  5.  All  fruit-trees  iufestecl  by  auy  iusect  or  inaects,  their  genus,  larvise  or  pupii-, 
or  iufected  by  disease  known  to  be  iujurione  to  fruit  or  fruit-trees,  and  liable  to 
spread  contagion,  must  be  cleaned  or  disinfected  before  the  tirst  day  of  April,  eight- 
een hundred  and  eighty-five,  and  on  or  before  the  tirst  day  of  April  of  each  succeed- 
ing year  thereafter.  All  owners  or  occupants  of  lands  on  which  fruit-trees  are  grown 
failing  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor 
and  fined  as  provided  for  in  section  six  of  this  act.  All  fruit,  packages,  trees,  plants, 
cuttings,  grafts,  and  scions  that  shall  not  be  disinfected  within  twenty-four  hours 
after  notice  by  the  inspector  of  fruit  pests,  or  a  duly  appointed  quarantine  guardian, 
or  any  member  of  the  board  of  horticulture,  shall  be  liable  to  be  proceeded  against 
as  a  public  nuisance. 

Sec.  6.  Any  person  or  corporation  violating  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall 
be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  be  punishable  by  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  twenty-five  dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  for  every 
offence. 

The  yellows  law  of  New  York,  passed  at  the  last  session  of  the  State 
legislature,  is  as  follows  :^ 

LAW   OF   XKW  YOKK. 

AN  ACT  to  prevent  the  spi-ead  of  the  disease  in  peach  trees  liuowu  as  the  yellows. 

[Passed  May  19,  1887.] 

The  people  of  thi  State  of  Xew  Yorl-,  npreseiiied  in  vciiait  and  assemlhj,  do  enact  as 
foUows  : 

Section  1.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  one  to  knowingly  or  willfully  keep  auy 
peach,  almond,  apricot,  or  nectarine  tree  infected  with  the  contagious  disease  known 
as  the  yellows,  or  to  offer  for  sale  or  shipment,  or  to  sell  or  ship  to  others,  any  of  the 
fruit  thereof;  that  both  tree  and  fruit  so  infected  shall  be  subject  to  destruction  as 
public  nuisances,  as  hereinafter  provided,  and  no  damages  shall  be  awarded  in  any 
court  in  this  State  for  entering  upon  premises  and  destroying  such  diseased  trees  and 
fruit,  if  done  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  act;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  every  person,  as  soon  as  he  becomes  aware  of  the  existence  of  such  disease  in  any 
tree  or  fruit  owned  by  him,  to  forthwith  destroy  or  cause  the  same  to  be  destroyed. 

Sec.  2.  In  any  town  of  this  State  in  which  such  contagious  disease  exists,  or  in  which 
there  is  good  reason  to  believe  it  exists,  or  danger  may  be  justly  apprehended  of  its 
introduction,  as  soon  as  such  information  becomes  known  to  the  supervisor  thereof,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  said  supervisor  to  appoint  forthwith  three  competent  freehold- 
ers of  said  town  as  commissioners,  who  shall  hold  office  during  the  pleasure  of  said 
supervisor,  and  such  order  of  appointment  and  of  revocation  shall  be  entered  at  large 
upon  the  town  records. 

Sec.  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  commissioners,  within  ten  days  after  appoint- 
ment as  aforesaid,  to  file  their  acceptance  of  the  same  with  the  clerk  of  said  town, 
and  said  clerk  shall  be  ex-officio  clerk  of  said  board  of  commissioners,  and  he  shall 
keep  a  correct  record  of  the  proceedings  of  said  board  in  a  book  to  be  provided  for  the 
jturpose,  and  shall  file  and  preserve  all  papers  pertaining  to  the  duties  and  actions  of 
said  commissioners,  or  either  of  them,  which  shall  be  a  part  of  the  records  of  said 
town. 

Sec.  4.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  commissioners,  or  any  one  of  them,  upon  or  with- 
out complaint,  whenever  it  comes  to  their  notice  that  the  disease  known  as  yellows 
exists  or  is  supposed  to  exist  within  the  limits  of  their  town,  to  proceed  without 
delay  to  examine  the  trees  or  fruit  supposed  to  be  infected,  and  if  the  disease  is  found 

'Xa«s  of  Neiv  York,  110//t  session,  1887.  Albany,  N.  Y.:  Banks  &  Brothers,  pub- 
lishers,  1887.     Chapter  403,  p.  504. 


208  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

to  exist,  adistiuguishiug  mark  shall  be  i)laced  upon  the  diseased  trees  audthe  owner 
notified  personally,  or  by  a  written  notice  left  at  his  nsual  place  of  residence,  or,  if  the 
owner  be  a  non-resident,  by  leaving  the  notice  with  the  person  in  charge  of  the  trees 
or  frnit,  or  the  person  in  whose  possession  said  trees  or  fruit  may  be.  The  notice  shall 
contain  a  simple  statement  of  the  facts  as  found  to  exist,  with  an  order  to  elfectually 
remove  and  destroy,  by  fire  or  otherwise,  the  trees  so  marked  and  designated,  within 
ten  days,  Sundays  excepted,  from  the  date  of  the  service  of  the  notice;  and  in  case 
of  fruit  so  infected  such  notice  shall  require  the  jjerson  in  -whose  possession  or  con- 
trol it  is  found  to  immediately  destroy  the  same  or  cause  it  to  be  done.  Said  notice 
and  order  to  be  signed  by  the  full  board  of  commissioners. 

Sec.  5.  Whenever  any  person  shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  comply  with  the  order  to  re- 
move and  destroy  the  trees  marked  by  the  commissioners,  as  aforesaid,  it  shall  become 
the  duty  of  the  commissioners  to  cause  said  trees  to  be  removed  and  destroyed  forth- 
with, employing  all  necessary  aid  for  that  purjiose,  the  expense  of  such  removal  and 
destruction  of  trees  to  be  a  charge  against  the  town  ;  and  for  the  purpose  of  said  re- 
moval and  destruction  the  said  commissioners,  their  agents  and  workmeu,  shall  have 
the  right  and  power  to  enter  upon  any  and  all  premises  within  their  town. 

Sec.  6.  If  any  owner  neglects  to  remove  and  destroy,  or  cause  to  be  removed  and 
destroyed,  as  aforesaid,  such  diseased  trees  and  fruit  after  such  examination  and  no- 
tification, and  within  the  time  hereinafter  specified,  such  person  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  iJunished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars, 
or  bj' imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  three  months,  or  botb,  in  the 
discretion  of  the  court ;  and  any  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  town  where  such  fruit  is 
sold,  shipped,  or  disposed  of,  as  aforesaid,  shall  have  jurisdiction  thereof,  and  all  such 
fines  so  collected  shall  be  turned  over  to  the  supervisor  of  the  town,  to  be  placed  by 
him  in  the  contingent  fund  of  said  town. 

Sec.  7.  The  commissioners  shall  bo  allowed  for  services,  under  this  act,  two  dollars 
for  each  full  day  and  one  dollar  for  each  half  day,  and  other  reasonable  charges  and 
disbursements,  hereunder  to  be  audited,  as  well  as  auj'^  other  charges  and  disburse- 
ments under  this  act,  by  the  board  of  town  auditors,  to  be  paid  to  said  commissioners 
as  other  town  accounts  are  paid.  Such  fees  and  all  reasonable  charges  and  disburse- 
ments of  said  commissioners,  in  each  case,  may  be  recovered  by  the  town,  in  the 
name  of  the  supervisor,  from  the  owner  of  the  diseased  fruit  or  trees  on  account  of 
which  such  fees,  charges,  and  disbursements  became  payable  or  were  incurred. 

Sec.  8.  This  act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 


EXPLANATION  OF  PLATES. 

ENGRAVINGS   FROM  PIIOTOGIJAPIIS. 

L  Diseased  slioot  from  maiu  limb.  This  sliould  have  remained  uubrauched,  but 
under  the  iufliienceof  yellows  it  branched  repeatedly,  the  ninch  ramified  apex  of  one 
branch  being  cut  away.  Nearly  all  buds  on  the  main  axis  and  most  on  the  secondary 
axes  germinated  in  autumn. 

McDaniel  orchard,  Dover,  Del.  (No.  17  of  this  report),  September  27,  1887.  About 
one-fifth  natural  size. 

XL  Terminal  shoots  badly  diseased,  many  branches  cut  away  from  the  interior  to 
give  a  clearer  view.  Strictly  comparable  with  No.  XEV,  such  shoots  almost  always 
remaining  entirely  uubrauched  in  healthy  trees. 

McDaniel  orchard,  Dover,  Del.,  September  27,  1887.  About  one-eighth  natural 
size. 

III.  Yellows  tuft  from  main  limb  of  a  moribund  tree — all  the  growth  of  one  season. 
Orchard  of  E.  P.  Selmser,  Dover,  Del.,  September  3,  1887.     Photographed  Novem- 
ber 5,  from  dried  specimen.     One-third  natural  size. 

IV.  Diseased  terminal  shoots  from  a  tree  which  had  been  cut  down. 

South  Haven,  Mich.,  May  1,  1888.  Strictly  comparable  with  No.  II,  and  with  Fig. 
4  of  No.  XXXVII,  colored.     About  one-half  natural  size. 

V.  Peach  tree  suffering  from  yellows.  The  shoots  of  the  season  are  branched  con- 
siderably and  many  terminal  buds  have  pushed,  forming  rosettes. 

Tree  stood  in  lawu  on  west  side  of  Thirteenth  street,  near  Boundary,  Washington, 
D.  C,  Nov.  2,  1887.     Nearly  all  the  leaves  of  the  normal  or  spring  growth  had  fallen. 

VI.  Diseased  trees ;  set  six  months.  Roots  badly  infested  by  aphides,  but  growth 
of  top  not  clearly  distinguishable  from  yellows  shoots.     One-eleventh  natural  size. 

Orchard  of  William  R.  Morris,  Dover,  Del.,  September  28,  1887. 

VII.  Healthy  trees ;  set  five  months.     Strictly  comparable  with  No.  VI. 
Orchard  of  R.  M.  Richardson,  Rising  Sun,  Del.,  August  27, 1888.     About  one-elev- 
enth natural  size,  i.  e.,  tree  was  G3  inches  high. 

VIII.  Tree  on  south  side  of  orchard  No.  14  of  this  report  (see  Map  IV).  Second 
year  of  the  disease  ;  tree  barren  ;  foliage  much  dwarfed  ;  base  of  limbs  grown  up  with 
diseased  shoots.  The  foliage  on  the  right  edge  of  the  picture  belongs  to  a  healthy 
tree.  In  the  upper  left  corner  are  healthy  branches  on  a  diseased  tree  ;  lower  are 
some  diseased  branches  from  the  same  tree.  Photograph  shows  clearly  the  very 
marked  contrast  in  size  of  leaves.     The  contrast  in  color  was  equally  marked. 

Magnolia,  Del.,  August  27,  1888.  Reduced  to  about  one-fortieth  natural  size;  i.  e., 
tree  about  IG  feet  high. 

IX.  Poach  trees  by  the  highway  near  Rising  Sun,  Del.,  orchard  of  E.  H.  Bancroft 
in  background. 

Right  tree  healthy;  left  one  iu  second  year  of  the  disease. 

August  27, 1883.  Reduced  to  about  one  fifty-fourth  ;  i.  e.,  diseased  tree  about  14  feet 
high. 

X.  Tree  seven  years  old ;  first  diseased  in  1887 ;  cut  back  severely  to  remove  yel- 
lows. Whole  top  covered  next  season  with  a  dense  growth  of  much  branched,  dwarfed, 
and  badly  diseased  shoots. 

Orchard  of  George  H.  Gildersleve,  Rising  Sun,  Del.,  6.  D.  Jackson,  tenant.  August 
27,  1888.     Reduced  to  about  one-twentieth  natural  size. 

209 
11245— No.  9-^^14 


210  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

XI.  Last  stage  of  peach  yellows.  Tbe  tree  in  the  foreground  died  in  the  fall  of 
1886  or  spring  of  1887.  The  branched  wiry  shoots  on  the  larger  limbs  are  often  the 
last  indication  of  vitality.     Trees  in  backgronnd  were  all  badly  diseased. 

nn?.? *?'iJ.t'  ^"^"'*  ^^'  ^^^^-     ^''^^^'^  ^*'-  ^  ^'^"  *^'«  ^-^P^rt.     Reduced  to  about 
one  thirty-fifth  ;  t.  c,  tree  about  18  or  20  feet  high. 

XII.  East  side  of  an  eight-year  old  orchard  of  65  acres  entirely  ruined  by  yellows, 
rhe  trees  on  15  or  20  acres  (foreground)  were  cut  down  in  August,  1888,  preparatory 
to  plowing  the  fiehl  for  wheat.     I  did  not  see  one  healthy  tree  in  the  whole  orchard. 

August  28,  1888,  farm  of  Samuel  Townseud,  near  Townseud   Del 

XIII.  Stump  the  World,  or  Old  Mixon,  peaches  from  orchard  No.  17  of  this  report 
(see  Map  III).  ' 

The  left-hand  peach  (1)  was  green  and  healthy.  The  right-hand  peach  (2),  from  a 
S  A?"  *''"'  '^'''  ^^^-«P«««d  ^"d  prematurely  ripe.  Dover,  Del.,  August  20, 
1888.  About  natural  size  ;  i.  e.,  the  longest  diameter  of  the  right-hand  peach  was 
^"^  inciiGs. 

XIV.  Healthy  peach  shoot.  Strictly  comparable  with  No.  II.  Orchard  of  C.  C 
Clark,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.,  March,  1888.     Reduced  to  about  oue-tifth  natural  size. 

TT  ;  ™  '^  terminal  shoot.  Strictly  comparable  with  right-hand  branch  of  Nos. 
II  and  XIV,  with  1  of  No.  IV,  and  with  1,  .3,  and  4  of  No.  XXXVII.  From  a  healthy 
heo  m  the  orchard  of  Joseph  McDaniel,  Dover,  Del.,  August  20,  1888  (see  Map  III) 
Reduced  to  about  seven  twenty-fourths  natural  size,  the  largest  left-hand  leaf  being  8 
inches  long  and  2  inches  broad. 

XVI.  Terminal  peach  shoots  collected  May  8,  1888,  from  a  strong  growing  five-year- 
old  tree  at  Vineyard  Ga.,  by  J.  D.Husted.  Photographed  May  13.  Believed  to  be 
yellows.  In  each  tuft  or  rosette  from  four  to  six  very  small  secondary  branches  were 
pushing  from  the  base  of  the  shoot-axis.  The  buds  on  the  naked  parts  of  the  two 
stems  were  dead.     Reduced  to  one-third  natural  size. 

XVII.  Same  as  No.  XVI,  but  collected  one  mouth  later.  From  J  N  Harris  Grif 
fiu,  Ga.,  June  15,  1888.  Photographed  June  17.  Reduced  to  about  one-third  natural 
"  vlriT''^  ^^t?       *^'  '"'''"  ^^*''  including  the  terminal  shoot,  was  15  inches. 

XVIII  Same  as  No.  XVII.  Terminal  shoot-axis  stripped  of  n.ost  of  its  leaves  and 
enlarged  (to  twice  natural  size)  to  show  manner  of  branching.  Primary,  secondary, 
and  tertiary  branches  developed  within  three  months,  although  during  that  time  the 
primary  shoot-axis  only  elongated  2i  inches. 

XIX.  Diseased  shoots.  Same  as  XVI  and  XVII,  but  late  in  the  season  and  entirely 
dead,  rhe  main  axis,  as  far  as  (a),  grew  in  1887.  The  entire  growth  of  1888  is  repre- 
sented by  the  feeble  terminal  and  side  shoots:  1  and  2  are  parts  of  the  same  shoot- 
axis.  From  J.  D.  Husted,  Vineyard,  Ga.,  November  13,  1888.  About  two-thirds  nat- 
nral  size. 

XX.  Diseased  shoots  from  a  New  Jersey  tree  set  two  years  in  Georgia.  The  vellows 
appeared  the  second  year,  most  of  the  winter  buds  pushed  in  October  or  No;ember 
and  the  foliage  was  fresh  and  plentiful  when  first  received,  but  was  withered  and 
follen  in  great  part  when  photographed.  No  spring  foliage  remained.  From  J.  D. 
Husted,  Vineyard,  Ga.,  November  13,  1888.     About  two-thirds  natural  size 

XXI.  Same  as  XX,  but  from  another  tree  in  the  same  orchard.  The  leaves  are  all 
from  winter  buds,  which  pushed  in  October  or  November  and  were  fresh  when  first 
gathered  I  r„m  J.  D.  Husted,  Vineyard,  Ga.,  November  15,  1888.  Not  quite  two- 
thirds  natural  size.  ^ 

XXII    Diseased  shoots  from  an  apricot.     Believed  to  be  of  the  same  nature  as  the 
diseased  grow  hs  of  the  peaeh.     The  branches  grew  out  separately,  erect,  from  the 
ame  mam  limb      Garden  of  John  R.  Nicholson,  Dover,  Del.,  Septemb  r  28,  1887.     Re- 
duced  to  one-third  natural  size.  ^o,  loo/.     ne 

of^J^,]!n"  U'T'I  '\""'  ^T  ^  '""''''  '"^"'"'-     Comparable  with  No.  XXII.    Garden 


EXPLANATION    OF    PLATES.  211 

XXIV.  East  part  of  an  orcliard  on  the  "  Cassiday"  oi-  "  Peach  Blossom"  farm  in 
Cecil  Connty,  Md.,  6  miles  southwest  of  Cecilton,  on  Sassafras  River.  The  trees 
are  only  eight  years  old,  hut  were  cat  down  in  the  summer  of  1888  on  account  of 
yellows,  having  become  entirely  worthless.     Photographed  November  7,  1888. 

XXV.  East  side  of  "  Cassiday  "  orchard,  looking  west.  Trees  ruined  by  yellows, 
but  many  yet  standing  (see  text). 

XXVI.  Peach  tree  set  two  years  and  entirely  healthy.  From  same  orchard  as  VI. 
Strictly  comparable  with  No.  XXVII.  This  tree  was  not  larger  than  other  healthy 
trees  in- same  orchard  or  than  similar  trees  in  the  orchard  from  which  XXVII  came. 
Eeduced  to  about  one-fifteenth  natural  size.     Dover,  Del.,  November  6,  1688. 

XXVII.  Same  as  XXVI,  but  badly  dwarfed  b>  root-aphides.  Tree  set  two  years  ; 
foliage  badly  "Freuched"  in  August.  From  southeast  corner  of  orchard  No.  18,  Map 
VII.  Reduced  to  about  one-fifteenth  natural  size.  Still  Pond,  Md.,  November  1, 
1888.     Uninjured  trees  in  this  orchard  were  as  large  as  XXVI. 

XXVIII.  Healthy  seedlings  which  were  inoculated  with  diseased  buds  August  12, 
1887,  and  developed  yellows  in  the  summer  of  1888.  Photograph  made  November  3, 
1888;  (.  e.,  fifteen  months  after  the  inoculation.     Trees  unmistakably  diseased. 

1.  Diseased  growth  from  the  inserted  bud  (a).  The  top  part  of  the  growth  was 
cut  away  in  the  nursery  some  time  between  August  and  Noteuiber. 

2.  Diseased  growth  from  the  inserted  bud  (a).     Tree  entirely  dead. 

3.  Diseased  growth  from  the  inserted  bud  («)  and  also  from  the  stock  (6  b  h). 
Top  part  of  growth  from  inserted  bud  was  cut  away  in  nursery  some  time  between 
August  and  November. 

Reduced  to  five-sevenths  natural  size. 

XXIX.  Healtby  seedlings  which  were  inoculated  with  diseased  buds  August  12, 
1887,  and  developed  yellows  in  the  summer  of  1888.  Photograph  made  November  3, 
1888;  i.  e.,  fifteen  mouths  after  the  inoculation.     Trees  unmistakably  diseased. 

1.  Inserted  bud  (a)  dead.     Five  diseased  growths  from  the  stock. 

2.  Diseased  growths  from  the  inserted  bud  (a)  and  also  from  the  stock  (i  h).  The 
top  part  of  the  branched  growth  from  the  inserted  bud  was  cut  away  in  the  nursery 
some  time  between  August  and  November. 

3.  One  diseased  growth  from  the  inserted  bud  (a)  and  also  five  or  six  from  the  stock. 
The  inserted  bud  made  a  feeble  growth  (1  inch)  and  died  early. 

Reduced  to  about  seven-eighteenths  natural  size. 

XXX.  Healthy  seedlings  which  were  inoculated  with  diseased  buds  August  12,  1887, 
and  developed  yellows  in  the  summer  of  1888.  Photograph  made  November  3, 1888* 
i.  e.,  fifteen  mouths  after  the  inoculation.     Trees  unmistakably  diseased. 

1.  Inserted  bud  dead,  no  growth  (a).     Two  diseased  growths  from  the  stock  (6  h). 

2.  Inserted  bud  dead,  no  growth  (a).  Two  diseased  growths  from  the  stock,  the 
foliage  of  which  was  not  wilted  or  fallen  away  when  the  tree  was  taken  from  the 
nursery. 

3.  Two  buds  inserted,  the  growth  from  one  («)  apparently  healthy  but  not  ro- 
bust ;  the  growth  from  the  other  (a')  diseased  and  dead.  Six  diseased  growths  were 
also  found  on  the  stock  below  the  lowest  inserted  bud,  four  of  which  are  here  shown. 
Reduced  to  about  seven-fifteenths  natural  size. 

XXXI.  Healthy  and  diseased  tree  from  the  same  nursery.  Stocks  of  the  same  age 
and  quality  and  budded  at  the  same  time  ;  i.  e.,  August,  1887.  Photograph  made  No- 
vember  3, 1888. 

1.  Inserted  bud  healthy.  Tree  heallhy.  Like  its  fellows,  but  smaller  than  the  av- 
erage.    Many  trees  budded  at  same  time  had  twice  as  great  a  diameter. 

2.  Inserted  buds  diseased.  Tree  diseosed.  One  of  the  two  inserted  buds  (a,  a')  failed 
to  grow  ;  the  other  grew  into  a  diseased  shoot.  The  growths  from  the  stock  (ft,  6',  h") 
were  diseased;  but  fc"  was  apparently  healthy  until  autumn,  when  most  of  its  win- 
ter buds  began  to  grow  under  the  influence  of  the  disease  (compare  with  I,  XX, 
XXI,  and  Fig.  2  of  XXXVII).     The  branching  diseased  tops  of  a'  and  b'  were  cut 


212  SPECIAL    REPORT    ON    PEACH    YELLOWS. 

away  in  the  nursery  some  time  between  August  and  November.     Reduction  about 
one-half.     Only  about  one-third  of  entire  length  is  here  shown. 

LITHOGRAPHS   OF   PAINTINGS   FROM   NATURE. 

XXXn.  Healthy,  ri])e  Beers'  Smock,  with  folinge.  Orchard  of  Daniel  Faulkner, 
Saugatuck,  Mich.,  October  10,  1H88. 

XXXIII.  Healthy  ripe  Beers'  Smock,  from  orchard  No.  14  of  this  rej  ort.  Septem- 
ber 17,  1887. 

XXXIV.  Beers' Smock  peaches  ;  1  and  2  prematurely  ripe;  3.  Section  through  the 
same,  but  the  flesh  is  not  quite  orange  enough  for  this  variety ;  4.  Green  peach  taken 
at  same  date  from  a  neighboring  healthy  tree.  Dover,  Del.,  September  2,  1887. 
Healthy  Beers'  Smock  peaches  were  ripe  at  Dover  about  September  17. 

XXXV.  Stump  the  World  or  Old  Mixon  peaches.  From  orchard  No.  17  of  this 
report.  Collected  August  27,  1888;  1,  2,  and  3  prematurely  ripe;  1  aud  2  showing 
appearance  of  flesh  when  cut  radially  and  tangentially ;  4.  Healthy  green  peach 
picked  at  same  time  from  a  neighboring  tree.     Natural  size. 

XXXVI.  Crawford's  Early  peaches.  From  orchard  of  Thomas  D.  France,  Chester- 
town,  Md.,  August  3,  1888  ;  1  and  2  prematured  by  borers  {JEgeria  exitiosa,  Say.) ;  3. 
Green  peach  from  a  neighboring  uninjured  tree.  The  tree  from  which  1  and  2  were 
taken  had  been  almost  completelj^  girdled  by  borers.  The  dark  spots  on  Fig.  1  and 
on  right-hand  peach  on  Plate  XXXII  are  due  to  Cladosporium. 

XXXVII.  Healthy  and  diseased  shoots.  Natural  size  and  color.  Fig.  1.  Section 
from  a  healthy  terminal  shoot.  Stump  the  World  ;  2.  Portion  of  diseased  shoot  from  a 
tree  in  advanced  stage  of  yellows,  showing  terminal  bud  and  axillary  bud  beginning 
to  grow  in  autunui  after  the  ordinary  foliage  has  fallen;  3.  Section  of  terminal  shoot 
from  a  tree  badly  diseased  in  all  parts,  second  or  third  year  of  disease.  This  is  strictly 
comparable  with  Fig.  1;  4.  Terminal  shoot  from  same  tree  as  Fig.  3.  Dead  since 
spring.  The  shriveled  appearance  is  not  clearly  shown  in  the  flgure.  This  figure 
may  also  be  compared  with  Fig.  1.     All  from  Washington,  D.  C.     September  28, 1888. 

The  leaf-spots  are  due  to  the  Cercospora  (?)  mentioned  in  the  text. 


INSERT  FOLDOUT  HERE 


i 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  I 


R.  C.  HoliHcs,  Phologra|iliir.  I)i,>er.  U.1 


M.  Joyce,  Eng.,  Waslin.  U.  C. 


DISEASED  PEACH  SHOOT  FROM  A  MAIN  LIMB. 
( Delaware. ) 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  II. 


R.  C.  Holmes,  Photngraplicr.  Dover,  Dp 


M.  Joyce,  Eng..  Wash'n.  D.  C. 


DISEASED  TEIi:\IIXAL  PEACH  SHOOTS, 
( Delaware,  j 


Report  on  Peach  Yellow.?.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLu\TE  III, 


Chas.  Il„|ikiiia.  Photographer,  \\a.l,ii.glon.  D   (;  >'    '"SC^.  Eng  ,  Wash'ti,  D.  C 

DISEASED  TUFT  FROM  A  MAIN  EIJIB. 
( Delaware. ) 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dejj't  Agriculture,  PLATE  IV. 


Gibson,  Ph.itogTapher.  Ann  Arhor,  Mich, 


M.  Joyce,  Eng,,  Wash'n,  D.  C. 


DISEASED  TERMI^TAL  PEACII  SHOOTS, 
( Michigan. ) 


Report  on  Peacli  TfUow,  — S  r  Veq  Pathology  U  S   Dep't  Agricultiii 


PLATK  V. 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— See.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLiATE  VI. 


U.  C.  Holmes.  Pb(j:ogra|ilicr,  D.ncr,  UtI. 


M.  Joyce,  Eng.,  Washn,  D.  C. 


DISEASED  TBEE.-SET  SIX  MOXTHS. 
*  (  Delaware. ) 


Report  on  Peach  Tellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  B.  Dep't  Agriculture, 


TLATE  VII. 


R    r.  Holmes,  Photographer.  Dover.  Dr 


M   Joyce,  Eng.,  Wasl.n,  I' 


HEALTHY  TREE.— SET  FIVE  MONTHS. 
( Delaware. ; 


Report  on  Feach  Yellows  — Sec.  \'ea.  Patholosy,  U.  S.  Dep't  A'-'rirultuv 


PLATE  A^III. 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  tJ.  S,  Dep'L  Agriculture. 


PLATE  IX. 


^-«> 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Fatbolosy.  U.  s.  Dep't  Atrriculture 


PLATE  X. 


Report  on  Peach  Tellows.-Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S   Dep't  Agricultur 


PLATE  XI. 


Report  on  Peach  Yelloxr?.— Sec.  Yej.  Pathclo,:ry,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture. 


PLATE  XII. 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows — Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture 


PL^VTE  XIII. 


Report  on  Peach  Tellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XIV. 


A.  L   ColloD,  PliotOKraiihtrr.  Ann  Arbor,  Midi  M.  Jujce,  Eng..  Wish'n,  U.  C. 

HEALTHY  TERMIXAL  PEACH  SHOOTS. 

( Michigan. ) 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathologr,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XV 


K.  C    Holmes,  Photo;raiilier,  Dover,  Del 


M  Joyce,  Eng.,  Washn,  D   0. 


HEALTHY  TERMINAL  SHOOT. 
( Dela-u'are. ) 


Report  on  Feacla  Tell:.ws.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XVI. 


A.  L.  CoUon,  Photographer,  Ann  Arbor.  Mich. 


M.  Joyce,  Enj.,  Wash'n,  D.  C. 


DISEASED  PEACH  SHOOTS. 
( G-eorgia. ) 


Report  on  Peach  Tell;.ws.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XVTT 


OibsoD,  Photographer,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich 


M.  Joyce,  En^.,  WasL  n,  D,  C. 


DISEASED  PEACH  SHOOT. 
( Georgia. ) 


Report  on  Peach  Yellcws.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XVIII. 


UibsoD,  Photographer,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich 


M.  Jujce,  Enj:.,  \V.n,h  n,  D,  C. 


DISEASED  PEACH  SHOOT. 

Enlargement  of  one  tuft  of  Plate  XVII 
{ Georgia. ) 


Report  en  Peach  Yellows^-Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XIX. 


J.  E.  She|iberd,  Photographer,  Washingfon,  D.  0 


M,  J.iyce,  Eng.,  Wash'n,  D.  C. 


PEACH  YELLOWS. 
( G-eorgia. ) 


Keport  on  Peach  Yelio-^.-.-Sec.  Veg.  Pathology.  U.  S.  Dep't  Agnciilture.  PLATE  XX. 


J.  E.  Shepherd,  Photographer,  Washingluii,  I) 


M-  Joyee,  Etig,,  Wash'n,  D.  C. 


PEACH  YELLOWS. 
( Georgia. ) 


Report  en  Peach  Yello-ws.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XXI. 


J.  E    Sliupherd.  Pliotnii-apher.  Wishinjlon,  D    C. 


M.  Joyce.  Eng  ,  Washn.  D.  C. 


PEACH  YELLOWS. 
( Georgia.  1 


Report  en  Peach  Yello-ws— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE   XXTT. 


R.  C.  Holmes,  PhotogiaplK  r,  Dover,  Del.  M.  j„;,.e,  Eng.,  «  Mhn,  D.  C. 

DISEASED  SHOOTS  FK0:M  AX  APSICOT. 
( Dela-ware. ) 


Report  on  Peacli  Yellows.— Sec:  Veg.  Pathology,  TJ.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.        PT^ATE  XXIIT. 


R.  (•   ir„lme,.  Photographer,  Dover.  Del  >'■  '"y"-  ="8-  ^a^l.'-.  D-  «■ 

HEALTHY  SHOOTS  FRO^^I  AX  APRICOT. 
( Delaware. ) 


1  ^    \       V  IK  ulture. 


PLATE  XXIV 


Heporr  on  Tecir 


\  'TT^  ulture 


PLiATE  XXV. 


Report  en  Peach.  Teliows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  D.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.  PLATE  XXVI. 


R    C.  Il.ilme.,  I'hotojrapher,  Dover.  I), !.  j,,  j„j-„    j;„„     ,^  .,.,|,.„^  p    (• 

hea:^thy  peach  tree.— set  two  years. 

( DelaTrare. ) 


Report  en  Peach.  Yello-ws— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology.  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriciilture.      PLATE  XXVII. 


R.  C.  Holmes,  Photographer,  Dover.  Del. 


nr  Joyoe,  En;  ,  Wasbn,  D.  C 


PEACTT  TEEE.— SET  T^TO  YEARS. 

Stunted  by  Root  Aphides. 

( ^Maryland. ) 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.        PLATE  XXVIII. 


B.  C.  Holmes,  Photographer,  Dover,  Del.  M.  j^j.^,  Enj.,  Washn,  D.  C. 

PEACH  YELLOWS.— RESI^LT  OF  IXOCrLATIOXS. 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Patliology,'U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture  PLATE  XXTX. 


■Report  on  Peach  Teliows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture,  PLATE  XXX. 


R-  C.  Holmes   Photographer,  Dover,  Del  M   j„j.ee,  Eng.,  Wash'n,  D.  C. 

PEACH  YELLOAYS.— RESULT  OF  IXOCULATIONS. 


Report  on  Peach  Yellows.— Sec.  Veg.  Pathology,  U.  S.  Dep't  Agriculture.         PLATE  XXXI. 


R.  C.  Holraes,  Pbolographer,  Dover,  Del  M.  Joyce,  Eng.,  Wash'n,  D.  C. 

V'E.A  OH  YELLOATS.— RESULT  OP  TXOCULATIOX. 
1.— Healthy.      2.— Di.seasecl. 


IJepovl  on  Pencil  \'ell()\vs      Sec  Wd  Palliolo^jv,  U.  S  Dej)  Agn't 


Plnlo  XXXII 


Drawn  from  nalure  &  colored  "by  W^H.IVe.stele^Ariist . 

Bl-IERS'  SMOCK 

(from  MICHlGANl 


A.Hjea*  C>^.  [h'Dz^a-.'uz,  BaiTirr 


Kepoi-loii  Pcn.li^MldWS      ScMvVt'cj  Palholoov  V  S  Dr|.  A<ii-ic 


I'hiir  xxxm 


DiHwn  from  nature  a  colored  l)yWTH.I¥f?.slelp,Arlisl. 

BIKERS'  SMOCK 
(FROM  Delaware) 


l!e|)i)i't  oil  Ppiu-h  Yellows      Sec  We  Pallu)loo\o  T  S  Dep  A>>n( 


IMalc  XXX  l\' 


PEACHI-:S    PRFMATURP:  AND  HEAI,TH\'. 
iBKERS"  SMOCK  J 


Repoi'l  (,.1  Peacli  ^■^>ll<nvs      S,mAV<j.  PallioloLiv,  t^.  S.Dep  Adric: 


Plat(>  XKXV. 


Ralx-rl:,  Cow,,...  IWil 


PEACUKS  PREMATURE  AND  HEALTHY 
(OLD  MIX0N(2) 


i 


Ivepi.i-I  (Ml  PciiclAMIows      S.u-Vci:  Pall. oJo-v,  lis. De'i)  Ao 


IMmIc  wxv 


Di-HWd  fi-oiri  hhIui-p  S- colored  %  WTH.FV<}.slelp^i\rli.sl 


PEACHES  HRAI.THVAXD  PRHMA'l'lJRKD  BY  BORERS 
(CRAWFORD'S  EARLY) 


i;('|)(>rl  on  l\>;i(li\rll(>\\s      SiH-Vrv  ]>:illi()l()i.y,  ['  S  Dep  Aoi-u 


l^lntc  XXXV 


Kc.berhirovviu-j  (I'lil 


PKACH      SHOOTS 

HKAI.rH>i'    Pr-    DISKASKO    HY  N'K  I.I.O  VV  s 


i'_..  Ifrh.i  .;..  ^.:  3dlr: 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Aberdeen,  Md.,  yellows  near 77 

AcclimatizatioQ  and  yellows 114, 115 

Accomac  Conuty,  Va,,  peach  orchards  in '^0 

Acrelius,  Israel,  on  peach  growing  in  Delaware 16 

^geria  exitiosa,  Say  {see  aho  Borers): 

Injuries  due  to 94 

Eefereuces  to 17, 18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23,  28, 34,  35,  55,  56, 158, 160 

Agaricus 165 

Agricultural  College  of  Michigan  : 

Analyses  made  at • 183 

Diseased  pits  i^lauted  at 145, 146 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  Analyses  by  Professor  Eiuuious  at 181 

Aidridge,  J.  K.,  yellows  appears  in  orchard  of 76 

Alkaline  substances  for  diseased  trees 124 

Allegan,  Mich.,  first  appearance  of  yellows  in 50 

Allegan  County,  Mich. : 

Decrease  of  peach  growing  in 51 

Extent  of  peach  growing  in 50 

First  orchards  in 39 

Healthy  orchards  of < 50 

Increase  of  peach  growing  in 51 

Present  peach  acreage  of 51 

Prevalence  of  yellows  in 50 

Profitable  or(;hards  in - Ill 

Yellows  appears  in 49 

Yellows  severe  in  east  part  of 174 

Yellows  in,  period  of  immunity  from 50 

Almond,  yellows  in 9 

Almond  stocks,  peaches  budded  on 22 

American  Farmer  : 

On  large  orchards  in  Maryland 72 

On  yellows  in  Maryland 73 

American  Philosophical  Society : 

On  decay  of  peach  trees 17 

Reward  offered  by 17 

Amherst,  Mass. : 

Analyses  made  at 125, 184 

Yellows  at 32 

Amsden's  June.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 
Analyses : 

Conflicting  results  of 126 

Necessity  for  further , 126 

Reference  to  results  of 124, 125 

Anguillula  sp.  in  peach  roots 95 

213 


214  INDEX. 


Anu  Arbor,  Mich.  : 

First  orchards  at 51 

Number  of  trees  uow  at 51 

No  yellows  at '. 51 

Hill  orchards  of 52 

Anne  Arundel  County,  Md.,  yellows  in 79 

Ants,  yellow  species  associated  with  root  aphides 161 

Aphides,  supposed  relation  to  yellows 162,  163,  164 

A  phis  on  peach  roots,  description  of 164 

Aphis  chrysauthemi,  Koch 94, 160 

Appendix  A: 

Table  I.  Analyses  by  Professor  Emmons 181 

Table  II.  Analyses  by  Professor  Emmons 182 

Table  III.  Analyses  by  B.  Kirtland 182 

Table  IV 183 

Table  V.  Analysesby  Dr.  R.  C.  Kedzie 18;i 

Table  VI 184 

Table  VII.  Analyses  by  Dr.  C.  A.  Goessmann 184 

Table  VIII.  Analyses  by  Dr.  C.  A.  Goessmann 184 

Table  IX.  Analyses  at  Connecticut  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 185 

Table  X.  Analyses  at  Connecticut  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 185 

Table  XI.  Analyses  by  L.  Murbach 186 

Table  XII 187 

Table  XIII-XXVII.  Analyses  by  A.  E.  Knorr 187 

Appendix  B, — Laws 198 

Appleton,  H.  H. : 

On  peach  acreage  of  New  Castle  County,  Del 61 

On  yellows  in  1856 61 

Apricot,  yellows  in 9 

Archdale,  on  peaches  in  Carolina 14 

Arkansas : 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 107 

Root  rot  reported  from 95 

Arthur,  Dr.  J.  C. : 

On  gumraosis  in  peach 168 

On  peach  disease  near  Geneva,  N.  Y 37 

Ashcraft  farm 108 

Ashes.     ( -See  Wood  iishes.) 

Asia,  peach  in 114 

Atlantic  coast : 

Longevity  of  peach  on 114 

Yellows  first  prevalent  along 83 

Atlantic  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  reported  from  27 

Augur,  P.  M. : 

Collects  peach  twigs  for  analyses 185 

On  longevity  of  Delaware  orchards 65 

On  yellows  in  Connecticut 31 

On  yellows  in  Tennessee 82 

Peaches  formerly  successful  in  Connecticut 29 

Bacon,  Hon. ,  statement  that  yellows  is  not  at  Laurel,  Del 68 

Bacteria  as  a  cause  of  yellows 166 

Bailey,  Prof.  L.  H, : 

Inoculated  trees  set  by 153 

Plants,  diseased  pits 145, 146 

Baltimore,  former  large  orchards  near 78 


INDEX.  215 

Page. 
Baltimore  County,  Md. : 

Yellows  loug  present  iu 78 

Yellows  now  in 78 

Former  longevity  of  trees  in 78 

Bancroft,  E.  H.,  yellows  iu  orchard  of 65 

Bark,  supposed  effect  of  yellows  on  color,  etc.,  of 92 

Baruard.  D.  P. : 

Orchard  of  (see  also  Orchards) 105 

Trees  inoculated  by 153 

Barnard,  Norris,  trees  inoculated  by 152 

Barnum,  Isaac,  pioneer  peach-grower 39 

Barn-yard  manure  and  yellows 130, 142 

Barrat,  M.  D.,  J.,  on  frosts  iu  Connecticut 116 

Barry,  Patrick: 

On  peach  growing  in  western  New  York 35 

On  yellows  in  New  Jersey 25 

Bartram,  peaches  near  the  estate  of 14 

Baskets,  size  of 40,  49 

Baxter, ,  yellows  in  orchard  of 174 

Bay  ley,  Mr.,  early  large  orchard  of,  iu  Virginia 20 

Beadle,  D.  W. : 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  Ontario 38 

On  results  of  Ontario  yellows  laws 176 

Beal,  W.  J.,  references  to  microscopic  examinations  by 124 

Beck,  James  L.,  yellows  appears  iu  orchards  of 77 

Beers'  Smock  (see  Peach,  varieiies  of). 

Bcllah,  Mr.,  on  peach-growing  iu  Delaware 20 

Bellevue 19 

Belmont 17 

Benton  Harbor,  Mich. : 

Committee  find  yellows  at 44 

Destruction  of  orchards  at 45 

Effect  of  yellows  at , ]  76 

First  budded  fruit  .nt 40 

Former  extensive  orchards  at 43 

Healthy  trees  at -  40 

Present  extent  of  orchards  at 46 

Yellows,  first  appears  near 42,  44,  45 

Great  prevalence  of  yellows  around 44 

Berckmans,  P.  J.,  peach  trees  from 80 

Bergeu  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  in 27 

Bernard,  Mrs.  Bayle,  yellows  not  in  England 10 

Berrien  County,  Mich.  : 

Depreciation  of  real-estate  values  due  to  yellows 113 

Early  peach-growing  iu 39 

Large  orchard  iu 40 

Opposition  to  enactment  of  yellows  law   170 

Former  extent  of  peach-growing  in 43 

Peach  statistics  of 43,  46 

Profitable  orchards  in Ill 

Recent  orchards  planted  iu 46, 178 

Severe  winter  in I'-0, 121 

When  yellows  became  destructive  iu 44 

Yellows  destroys  the  orchards  iu 45, 176 

Yellows  first  appears  in 41 


216  INDEX. 

Page. 

Be%'erly,  Robert,  on  peaches  in  Virginia 13 

Biddle,  George : 

Ou  peach-growing  in  Cecil  Connty,  Md 69 

On  yellows  in  Cecil  County,  Md 70 

Bidwell,  H.  E.  {see  Cook) : 

On  profits  of  peach-growing  in  Michigan Ill 

On  yellows  at  South  Haven 46 

Report  on  yellows 170 

Biggs,  Hon.  B.  T. : 

On  peach  acreage  of  New  Castle  County,  Del 61 

Orchards  of 60 

Bilyeu's  October  (see  Peach,  varieties  of). 

Bissell,  J.  W.,  lime,  potash,  and  yellows  124 

Bitley,  N.  H. ,  early  orchard  of 4d 

Black,  Charles: 

Crowding  and  yellows 125 

Ou  curing  yellows 140 

On  root-aphides 161 

Black,  Jno.  J.,  and  Cochran,  E.  R.,  on  peach  acreage  in  Now  Castle  County.  61 

Black,  Dr.  Jno.  J.,  on  advent  of  yellows  into  Delaware 57 

Black  heart-wood  in  the  peach 120 

Blight,  New  Zealand  peach  orchards  much  injured  by 115 

Bombay  Hook,  peach  orchards  at 56 

Bone  for  yellows 78,128,130 

Bone-black  for  yellows 125 

Borers  cause  yellow  foliage 84, 94 

Borers,  (see  a7so  JEgeria): 

Reference  to 20,21,94 

Trees,  injured  by 72,  74, 160 

Worse  ou  sandy  soil 158 

Yellows  not  caused  by 158, 160 

Boston,  vicinity  of,  formerly  free  from  yellows 31 

Bottom  lands  and  yellows 132, 140, 141 

Bottoms  not  suited  to  peach  trees 81 

Boughton,  Curtis : 

Pioneer  peach-grower 41 

Ships  peaches  to  Chicago  in  1840 40 

Bowen,  Col.  James,  on  yellows  in  orchards  of  Isaac  Reeves 56 

Branching  of  shoots  in  yellows 87, 88 

Brandy  from  peaches 14, 15, 16, 20 

Brandywine  (see  Peach,  varieties  of). 
Bridgeville,  Del.  : 

Root  aphis  at 161,163 

Yellows  not  at 65,68 

Brodiss,  Mr.,  pioneer  peach-grower 39 

Brothers,  Wm.,  orchard  of  (see,  aJso,  Orchards,) 104 

Brown,  D.  N.,  yellows  at  Saint  Joseph,  first  in  orchard  of 42 

Brown,  Edwin  H.,  no  yellows  at  Centreville,  Md 74 

Bro wu,  Jacob,  yellows  in  orchard  of 65 

Brown,  W.  A.,  on  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  Michigan 42, 45 

Budded  orchards : 

First  in  Cecil  County,  Md 69 

First  in  Kent  Couuty,  Md 71 

First  in  Queen  Anne  County,  Md 79 


INDEX.  217 

Page, 
Bndding: 

Effect  of  continued  propagation  by 142, 143 

Yellows  may  be  produced  by 149, 152, 154 

Badd,  Prof.  J.  L.,  on  climate  as  a  cause  of  yellows 114 

Burdette,  Mr.,  profitable  orchard  of 36 

Burlington,  N.  J. : 

Orchards  at 18,20 

Present  condition  of  orchards  iu  27 

Yellows  first  appears  at 21 

Burnett,  Mr.,  pioneer  peach-grower 39 

Burnite,  John,  mammoth  peaches  grown  by 13 

Butler,  C. : 

Peaches  formerly  plentiful  in  Connecticut 30 

Reports  yellows  from  Connecticut 30 

Calcium  oxide  (see  lime). 

California: 

Condition  of  peach-growing  in 177 

Fruit  law  of 206 

Ho w  to  keep  yellows  out  of 177 

Reference  to  peach-growing  in 107 

Yellows  not  in 9, 177 

Cambium  cylinder,  prolonged  activity  of,  in  yellows 92 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  yellows  at 32 

Camden,  Del. : 

Great  peach  country  around 63 

Yellows  at 65, 66 

Camden  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  in 27 

Campanius,  Thomas,  finds  peach  trees  along  the  Delaware 12,13 

Canada : 

Enforcement  of  yellows  law  in 176 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 107 

Yellows  in 37 

Canuon,  William  E. : 

Orchards  injured  by  winter 122 

Yellows  and  winter  kill 122 

Canterbury,  Del. : 

Great  peach  country  around 63 

Yellows  at 66 

Cape  May  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  in 27 

Capuodium  elongatum 165 

Carbon  dioxide.     (*S'ee  Carbonic  acid.) 

Carbonic   acid,  analyses  (Appendix  A) 181 

Carolina : 

On  yellows  in 79 

Orchards  in  the  colony  of 13, 14 

Caroline  County,  Md.  : 

Contrasted  with  Kent  County 132 

On  yellows  in..... 70,77 

Soil  of.... 71 

Carrow,  John,  on  restriction  of  yellows 172 

Casco,  Mich. ,  first  appearance  of  yellows  in 44,50, 174 

Cassiday  farm  : 

Orchards  on 69 

Yellows  treated  on 128 


218 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Cayuga  Couuty,  N   Y.,  yellowsin 34 

Cecil  County,  Md.  : 

First  appearance  of  yellows  in 70 

First  budded   orchards  in gg 

Many  orchards  set  iu 57 

Much  premature  fruit  from 70 

Present  extent  of  peach  growing  in 69 

Yellows  now  destructive  iu 70 

Cecil  ton,  Md.  : 

Orchards  near 69 

Profitable  orchard  at 109 

Census  of  Michigan  : 

Fruit  statistics 46 

Peach  trees  in  Allegan  County 51 

Peach  trees  in  Ganges  and  Saugatuck 50 

Peach  trees  in  Ottawa  County  and  Kent  County 51 

Peach  trees  in  Washtenaw  County 51 

Peach  trees  in  whole  State 53 

Census  of  the  United  States: 

Orchard  products  of  Delaware 62 

Peach  acreage  of  Kent  County,  Md 63,72 

Peach  acreage  of  New  Castle  County,  Del 62 

Peach  acreage  of  Queen  Anne  County,  Md 72 

Peach  acreage  of  Susses  County,  Del 63 

Centre  County,  Pa.,  yellows  in 32 

Centreville,  lud.,  yellows  reported  from 38 

Centreville,  Md.  : 

Great  peach  country  around 74 

Yellows  not  at 74 

Yellows  not  south  of 77 

Cercospora  (?) 91,165 

Cercospora  Persicae 165 

Chamberlain,  J.  E.,  peach  trees  in  Berrein  County,  Mich 43 

Chemical  analyses  (Appendix  A) 181 

Chemical  elements,  deficiency  of  most,  iu  yellows 125 

Chemical  theory  of  yellows,  objections  to 126 

Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Peninsula  (see  Delaware  and  Chesapeake) : 

Climate  of,  adapted  to  the  peach 68 

Excessive  rains  on 122, 123 

General  movement  of  yellows  on 63 

Imperfect  rain-fall  records  of 122 

Increase  of  yellows  on 123, 131 

Peach  adapted  to 72 

Root-aphis  on 160,161 

Chesapeake  Bay,  oichards  in  vicinity  of 17,72,97 

Chester  River,  Maryland,  orchards  along 72,  74 

Chestertown,  Md.: 

Early  fall  of  peach  leaves  in  orchard  at 118 

Increase  of  yellows  at 76 

Large  orchards  near 71,72 

Profitable  orchard  at 108,110 

Root-aphis  at 161 

Value  of  peach  farms  around Ill 

Yellows  rare  at 73,  75, 76 


INDEX.  219 

Page. 

China,  peach  iii   • 114 

Chinese  Cling.     (5ee  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Chinese  peaches,  supposed  hardihood  of 114 

Chloride  of  sodium,  analyses.     (Appendix  A.) 181 

Chlorine,  analyses.     (Appeudix  A.) 181 

Chrisfield,  George  ir)2, 153 

Christiana,  Del.,  peach  orchards  formerly  at 56 

Christiana.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Chronicle,  the  Gardeners',  on  yellows  in  England 10 

Church  Hill,  Md. : 

Increase  of  yellows  at. 77 

Yellows  in  1886  in  village  of 75 

Yellows  rare  at 75, 76 

Churchville,  Md.,  yellows  near 77 

Cladosporium  carpophyllnm 165 

Clark  Brothers,  orchards  of 55 

Clark,  Cant  well,  orchards  of 60 

Clark,  John  C,  prevalence  of  yellows  at  Delaware  City 57 

Clayton,  Del : 

Autumn  frosts  at 118, 1U> 

Large  orchards  at 66 

Orchards  and  yellows  at 64,60, 100,102 

Profitable  orchards  at 109 

Value  of  peach  farms  at Hg 

Clements,  Charles,  on  yellows  in  Queen  Anne  County,  Md 77 

Climate  and  yellows 51, 114 

Climate: 

Mild  in  Delaware 120 

Of  Maryland  and  Delaware 68 

Of  United  States,  peach  adapted  to 114 

Supposed  change  in 115 

Clingstones.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 
Clubb,  Henry  S. : 

Census  of  peach  trees  by,  in  Ganges  and  Saugatuck 50 

On  orchards  at  Benton  Harbor,  Mich 43 

Yellows  formerly  not  at  Grand  Haven,  Mich 44 

Cochran,  E.  K.     {See  Black.) 

Cochran,  .lohn  P.,  former  orchards  of 60 

Cock,  Mr.  Peter,  peaches  near  estate  of 15 

Cole,  S.  W.,  on  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 150 

Collins,  L..  reports  yellows  from  Saint  Joseph,  Mich 44 

CoUiuson,  Peter,  sends  peach  pits  to  Talbot  County,  Md 20 

Columbia,  Mo.,  diseased  pits  planted  at 145 

Columbia,  Conn.,  yellows  at 31 

Columbus,  Ohio,  diseased  pits  planted  at 146 

Commercial  fertilizers,  use  of,  in  Maryland  and  Delaware 127 

Commissioners  of  yellows: 

Duties  of,  in  Michigan 171 

Not  now  required  at  Douglas  and  South  Haven,  Mich 174, 175 

Cost  of  maintaining 175 

Connecticut: 

Autumn  frosts  in 116 

Peaches  ouce  plentiful  in 29 

Reference  to  peach-growing  in 107 

Yellows  in 10,30,31,32,115 


220  INDEX. 


Connecticut  experiment  station,  analyses  made  at 125 

Contagium  and  yellows 135, 155 

Cook  and  Bidwell  find  yellows  around  Benton  Harbor 44 

Cooper,  Thomas,  on  peaches  iu  United  States 16 

Cork  patches  on  diseased  shoots 93 

Corsa,  W.  P.  (?),  on  yellows  at  Milford,  Del 65 

Corsica  Neck,  Md.,  yellows  not  in 74 

Coulter,  Thomas,  on  premature  decay  of  peach  trees 17 

Country  Gentleman  on  yellows  at  Delaware  City 57,  HS 

Cowgill's  Corners,  Del.,  yellows  at 64 

Coxe,  William,  reference  to  orchard  of 18,20,21 

Cox,  John  W.,  on  peach  crop  of  Hunterdon  Countj",  N.  J 26 

Crawford's  Early.    (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 
Crawford's  Late.    (.See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Cromwell,  Kichard,  orchards  of 78 

Crookshank,  T.  C,  profitable  peach  crop  of 109 

Crowding  and  yellows 125, 131 

Crumpton,  Md.,  yellows  at 75 

Cultivation  and  yellows 30, 129 

Cultivator  and  Country  Gentleman  on  peach-growing  in  western  New  York  .  36 

Cultivator,  The  Albany,  on  yellows  iu  New  Jersey 24 

Cumberland  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  iu 27 

Cumberland  County,  Pa.,  yellows  in 33 

Cure  of  yellows 23,127,128,129 

Curtis,  Col.  F.  D.,  on  yellows  in  New  York 29,37 

Darling,  Noyes: 

On  color  of  premature  peaches 86 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  Connecticut 29 

On  loss  of  elasticity  in  diseased  branches 92 

On  restriction  of  yellows 171 

Ou  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 149 

On  yellows  at  New  Haven 30 

On  yellows  in  apricots 9 

On  yellows  in  Eurojie 11 

Reference  to  papers  by 21,  29, 30 

Yellows  in  peaches  on  plum  stocks 167 

Dauphin  County,  Pa.,  yellows  in 33 

Day,  Dr.  R.  H.,  on  loss  of  peach  orchards  in  Louisiana 82 

"Dead  spots" 102 

Dean,  Samuel,  on  degeneracy  of  the  peach 18 

Deer  Creek,  Maryland,  yellows  along 77 

Delano,  John,  reports  yellows  in  orchards  of  Isaac  Reeves 56 

Delaware : 

Blackberries,  strawberries,  and  melons  much  grown  in  south  part  of 131 

Condition  of  farming  iu 55 

Cultivation  of  orchards  in 141 

Depreciation  of  real  estate  due  to  yellows  in 112 

Early  methods  of  cultivation  in 55 

Early  peach-growing  iu 53 

First  budded  orchards  in 54,  62 

Great  orchards  of 58, 62, 63 

Long  life  of  trees  in 26 

Marshes  of ..  64 

Orchard  products  of 62 

Peaches  shipped  from 58, 108 


INDEX.  221 

Page. 
Delaware — Coutiuued. 

Profits  of  peach-growing  in 60 

Reference  to  mildness  of  climate  of 120 

Reference  to  peaches  growing  in 107 

Report  ou  peach-growing  in 60 

Restriction  of  yellows  in 172 

Result  of  treatment  for  yellows  in 128 

Root  aphis  in 94,160,162 

Severity  of  yellows  in  upper  part  of 82, 113 

Short  life  of  peach  trees  in  parts  of 24 

Supposed  restriction  of  yellows  in 172 

Wheat  and  corn  staple  crops  in  upper  part  of 54 

Yellows  iu 10,21,56 

Delaware  and  Cheasapeake  Canal,  orchards  along  iu  lb70 54 

Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Peninsula  (see  Chesapeake): 

Autumn  frosts  on 115, 1'20 

Fii  st  appearance  of  yellows  on  57 

Longevity  of  peach  ou 114 

Severe  winters  on 120 

"  Tennessee"  seed  grown  on 148 

Use  of  commercial  fertilizers  on 127 

Delaware  City : 

First  appearance  of  yellows  at  .. 56 

First  orchards  near 54 

Former  long  life  of  orchards  at 58 

•Great  success  of  orchards  arouud 55 

Present  condition  of  peach-growing  at 58 

Rey bold  orchards  at 57 

Yellows  destructive  at 56,  57, 58 

Delaware  region,  early  orchards  in 16,  17, 19, 20 

Delaware  River: 

Peach-growing  in  vicinity  of 25,27,32,56,59, 112 

Yellows  aloug 133 

Deuney,  J.  Frank,  orchard  of  (see  also  Orchards) 102 

Densmore,  Randolph,  pioneer  orchard  of 40 

Denton,  Md. : 

Root  aphis  at 161, 163 

Yellows  not  south  of 77 

Department  of  Agriculture: 

Analyses  made  by  A.  E.  Kuorr  at 187 

Diseased  pits  jilanted  at 145 

Derby,  S.  H.,  did  not  escape  yellows  by  using  healthy  seed  aud  sound  buds..  156 

Destruction  of  infected  trees,  persons  advocating 171 

De  Vries  finds  peach  trees  iu  Virginia  in  1633 11 

Dietrich,  C.  J.,  yellows  formerly  not  at  Grand  Rapi Js,  Mich 44 

Disastrous  spread  of  yellows 24,  37,  45, 65,  66,  76 

Diseased  buds 149 

Diseased  pits 143 

District  of  Columbia,  yellows  in 79 

Dodge,  J.  R.,  statistics  of  yellows  in  New  Jersey 27 

Douglas,  Mich. : 

Distance  from  South  Haven 49 

First  appearance  of  yellows  at 49 

Restriction  of  yellows  at 175 

Yellows  aud  soil  exhaustion  at 137, 138, 139 


222  INDEX. 

Page. 

Douw,  V.  M.,  on  yellows  in  Connecticut 30 

Dover,  Del. : 

Autnmu  frosts  at 117, 119 

Excessive  rains  at 123 

Great  peach  country  around 63 

Hard  winter  and  yellows  at 121 

Orchards  and  yellows  at 103,104,101; 

Peach  center  now  below 61 

Profitable  orchard  at 109 

Root  aphis  at 164 

Value  of  peach  farms  at 112 

Yellows  at 66 

Yellows  in  old  orchard  near 156 

Yellows  not  a  new  disease  at 64,65 

Downing,  A,  J.  : 

On  terminal  growths  in  yellows 89 

On  extermination  of  yellows 29 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  Connecticut 29 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  southern  New  York 28 

On  neglect  of  pruning 141 

On  restriction  of  yellows 30,172 

On  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 149 

On  yellows  in  Connecticut 30 

On  yellows  in  Europe 11 

Reference  to  book  by 42 

Reference  to  statements  by 21,29,30 

Urges  prompt  removal  of  diseased  trees 171 

Downing,  Charles: 

On  yellows  at  Newburgh,  N.  Y' 29 

On  yellows  in  Europe 11 

On  appearance  of  yellows  in  trees  imported  from  France 167 

Urjjes  prompt  removal  of  diseased  trees 171 

Downing,  Charles,  et  al.,  on  peach  growing  in  New  Castle  County,  Del 60 

Drought,  efi'ect  on  yellows 122,123 

Drummoudville,  Ontario,  yellows  at 37 

Dunlap,  Dr.  F.  S. : 

On  early  orchards  at  Delawaie  City 55 

On  location  of  New  Castle  orchards  in  1870 58 

On  nature  of  peach  disease  at  Delaware  City 57 

On  prevalence  of  yellows  at  Delaware  City 57 

On  prevention  by  removal  of  diseased  trees 172 

On  recent  endeavors  to  grow  i)eaches  at  Delaware  City 5S 

On  restriction  of  yellows 172 

On  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 150 

On  yellows  in  Kent  and  Cecil,  Md 70 

Du  Pratz,  M.  le  Page,  on  introduction  of  peach  into  Louisiana 13,  15 

Duquoin,  111.,  yellows  near 82 

Durham,  Conn.,  yellows  at 31 

Dwarfed  trees 94,159,161 

Dyckman,  A.  S.  : 

On  early  peach  growing  in  Michigan 41 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  at  South  Haven  46 

Peach  trees  in  southwest  Michigan 43 

Quantity  of  peaches  shipped  by 47 

Yellows  and  soil  exhaustion t  t--  -r ••  ■ l^'^i  137 


INDEX.  223 

Page. 

Eanies,  Aarou,  early  orchard  of 41 

Earle,  Samuel  T.,  uo  yellows  at  Centerville,  Md 74 

Early  Alexander.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 
Early  Louise.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 
Early  Rivers.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 
East  shore  of  Maryland  : 

Appearance  and  character  of 70 

Yellows  on 77 

East  Windsor,  Couu.,  peaches  formerly  abundant  at 30 

Eastern  United  States,  yellows  believed  to  be  confined  to 9 

Easton,  Md.,  peaches  at 20 

Edgewood,  Md.,  yellows  at 78 

Edwards,  John  T.,  yellows  in  peaches  on  plum  stock 167 

Eldridgo,  G.  Morgan : 

On  early  appearance  of  yellows  in  Cecil  County,  Md 70 

Yellows  in  old  orchard  of 141 

Eliason,  Wilbur,  yellows  in  orchards  of 75 

Elkton,Md.,  peaches  in 69 

Ellis,  John,  ou  premature  decay  of  peach  trees 17 

Ellison,  J.  T.,  orchards  of 60 

Emerson,  G. : 

On  climate  as  a  cause  of  yellows 114, 120 

On  longevity  of  Delaware  orchards 65 

Emmons,  Professor,  analyses  by 124,  IHl 

Emory,  Blanchard,  orchards  of 72 

Emory,  E.  B.,  borers  and  yellows  in  orchard  of 159 

Endicott,  Capt.  John,  wants  peach  pits  for  New  England 11 

England,  William  H.,  yellows  in  old  orchard  of 157 

Enc^le,  C. : 

Early  orchard  of 41 

Yellows  formerly  not  at  Paw  Paw,  Mich 44 

Yellows  in  orchard  of 48 

Essex  County,  N.  J.,  on  peach  growing  in 27 

Europe,  yellows  not  in 10 

Evans,  John,  yellows  appears  in  orchard  of 75 

Excision  experiments 168, 169 

Fairlee,  Md. : 

Thrifty  orchards  near 77 

Yellows  near 77 

P^iirmount  Park,  Belmont  now  a  part  of 17 

Farmer  and  Mechanic,  on  yellows 23 

Farmers'  Cabinet,  on  yellows 23 

Faulkner,  Daniel,  peaches  from  orchard  of 212 

Feitou,  Del. : 

Healthy  peaches  grown  at 67 

Large  peaches  from 13 

Soil  and  timber  in  vicinity  of 64 

Yellows  in  old  orchards  of 157 

Yellows  of  recent  occurrence  southwest  of C)7 

Fenuimore,  E.  C. : 

Farci  of,  former  value  of 112 

Very  productive  and  profitable  orchard  of 53, 60, 110, 133 

Yellows  in  orchards  of , 133 


224  INDEX. 

Pago. 
Fenuville,  Mich. : 

Extent  of  iujury  by  yellows  at 50 

First  appeuraace  of  yellows  at ,. 50 

Yellows  aud  soil  exhaustion  at 136 

Ferric  oxide.     (5ee  oxide  of  iron.) 

Fertile  soil  and  yellows 132 

Fertilizers  and  yellows 128, 129, 130,131 

Fish,  T.  D.,  on  yellows  in  England 10 

Fisher,  A.  W.,  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 138 

Fisher,  George  P.,  on  early  appearance  of  yellows  in  Kent  County.  Del 64 

Fitts,  John  F.,  reports  premature  decay  of  peach  trees  in  Connecticut 30 

Fitz,  James,  on  yellows  in  Europe 11 

Fleuiington,  N.  J.,  premature  decay  of  peach  trees  at 26 

Florida,  root-knot  in 95 

Floy,  Michael : 

On  cause  of  decay  in  peach  trees 28 

Reference  to  book  by 42 

Flushing,  L.  I.,  yellows  at 21,24,29 

Foliage  in  yellows,  color  and  size  of 88,89,  91,92 

Foliage : 

Healthy  in  first  stage  of  yellows 88,89 

Size  of,  on  healthy  trees 88 

Foote,  David,  on  premature  peaches  in  Connecticut 30 

Forsyth,  reference  to  treatise  by 17 

Foster.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Foster,  Daniel,  early  peach  nursery  of 39 

Fox's  Seedling.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

France,  Thomas  D.,  profitable  orchard  on  farm  of 108 

Frederica,  Del.  : 

Early  budded  orchard  at 62 

Exemption  from  yellows  on  farm  at 65 

Great  peach  country  around 63 

Yellows  around 67 

Yellows  in  old  orchard  at 157 

Yellows  for  some  years  southeast  of 67 

Freezing : 

Effects  of,  on  peach  trees 121 ,  122 

Not  a  cause  of  yellows 120, 121, 122 

"Frenched"  trees 94,107 

"Frenching  " 161 

"Frenchmen" 94 

French  traders,  jicaches  planted  by 39 

Frost : 

Efi'ect  on  foliage  in  autumn 118 

Not  a  cause  of  yellows 115 

Frosts : 

In  Connecticut 116 

Of  autumn,  yellows  not  caused  by 115, 120 

On  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Peainsula 116 

Fruit  buds,  winter  destroys 120 

Fungi : 

Injuries  by 165 

Limiting  efi'ect  of  variety  on 142 

"  Fungus  growth  " 87, 138 

Gabriel,  George,  on  yellows  in  Connecticut 30 


INDEX.  225 

Ganges,  Mich. : 

First  appearance  of  yellows  in 50, 174 

Number  of  peach  trees  in 50 

On  yellows  iu 175 

Yellows  and  soil  exhaustion  in 137 

GarlieUl,  Charles  W.: 

On  orchards  at  Saint  Joseph,  Mich 43 

On  results  of  Michigan  yellows  law 173 

On  yellows  at  Saint  Joseph 45 

Ou  yellows  iu  western  New  Yorlv 37 

Plants  diseased  pits U6 

Urges  prompt  removal  of  diseased  trees 171 

Gary's  Hold  On.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Gault,  John,  time  leaves  fell  in  orchard  of 119 

Geddes,  Mr.,  ou  peach  growing  in  Virgiuia 20 

Genesee  Farmer  on  tardy  appearance  of  yellows  in  west  New  York 35 

Geneva,  N.  Y'.,  yellows  near 37 

Genin,  A.  W.  F.,  yellows  reported  from  Ohio  orchard  of 33 

Georgia : 

Early  orchards  in 14 

First  orchards  of 7y 

Horticultural  Society  of 81 

Present  location  of  peach  orchards  in 79 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 81, 107 

Yellows  iu 10,79,80 

Y'ellows  in  mild  climate  of 121 

Gercker,  Mr. ,  large  peach  farm  of G2,  63 

Germicides 140 

Gibson,  Charles,  on  appearance  of  yellows  at  South  Haven 47 

Gloucester  County,  N.  J. ,  on  yellows  in 27 

Goessmanu,  Dr.  Charles  A.,  analyses  by 125,  126,  184 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich.  : 

Diseased  pits  planted  at 146 

First  appearance  of  yellows  at 51 

Hill  orchards  of ,52 

Late  appearance  of  yellows  at , 44, 121 

Winter  inj ures  trees  at 121 

Grand  Traverse,  Mich.,  no  yellows  in 51 

Great  Lakes,  frosts  in  region  of 115 

Green,  James  W.,  orchard  of  (see  a?sa  Orchards) 04 

Greenwich,  N.  J.,  jellows  at 27 

Griffin,  Ga.,  yellows  at 80,81 

Grimsby,  Outario: 

Appearance  of  yellows  at 37,  3S 

Restriction  of  yellows  at 176 

Ground  bone  for  yellows 78, 128, 130 

Groups  of  diseased  trees 47, 141 

Gulf  States,  yellows  thought  to  be  absent  from 84 

Gulley,  A.  G.  : 

Ou  restriction  of  yellows 176 

On  terminal  growths  in  yellows 89 

On  yellows  iu  Van  Bureu  County 48 

Gummosis  in  yellows 168 

Hale,  J.  H.,  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 125 

Halstead, ,  yellows  iu  orchard  of 174 

11245 -No.  9 15 


226  INDEX. 

Page. 

HainiltoD,  A.,  yellows  and  soil  eshanstiou 137 

Hamiltou,  Ontario,  yellows  reported  from 37 

Hamiuoud,  John,  early  orcbaids  in  Maryland  and  Virginia 12 

Hancock,  T.,  on  extent  of  peach  orchards  iu  New  Jersey '24 

Harford  Conuty,  Md.  : 

Few  orchards  now  in 77 

Orchards  formerly  plentiful  in 77 

Yellows  long  present  in 77 

Yellows  now  in 78 

Barker's  Seedling.     (.S^<?e  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Harper,  F.  H.,  orchards  of  (see  also  Orchards) 1)7,99 

Harrington,  Del.,  yellows  formerly  at (il 

Harrington,  Fred.  T 157 

Harris,  James  N.,  on  yellows  iu  Georgia t-0,  h1 

Harris,  James  S.  : 

Diseased  buds  procured  from  orchard  of 152 

Experience  with  root  aphides iOU 

On  early  appearance  of  yellows  in  Kent  County,  jMd 73 

Harris,  John,  Round  Top,  orchard  of 72 

Harris,  T.  W.,  on  yellows  at  Cambridge,  Mass 32 

Harrisburg,  Pa.,  yellows  iu  vicinity  of 33 

Hartford,  Conn.,  yellows  at 31 

Hartwell,  Samuel,  on  yellows  in  Massachusetts 31 

Havre  de  Grace,  Md.,  yellows  at   78 

Hays,  M.,  orchard  of  {see  also  Orchards) 104 

Haywood,  Thomas  C,  on  early  decay  of  peach  trees  in  New  Jersey 26 

Healthy  peaches,  on  growth  and  ripening  of So 

Heath  Cling.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Heath,  S.  F.,  profitable  orchard  of Ill 

Hennepin,  Louis,  finds  peach  trees  in  Louisiana 13 

Hepbron,  Hon.  William  T.,  on  yellows  in  Kent  Couuty,  Md 73 

Heston,  Edward,  reference  to  orchard  of l'^,  19 

Hexenbeseu,  peach  growths  likened  to 87,  ■'~8 

Hickman,  Harbeson,  reports  yellows  absent  frcmi  Sussex  County,  Del (W 

Higley,  AV.  K.,  reference  to  paper  by 42 

Hiller,  Casper,  on  yellows  iu  Pennsylvania 33 

Hills,  peaches  grown  upon 52 

Hill's  Chili.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

History  and  distributlou  of  yellows,  suuinuiry  of 82 

Hoffecker,  James,  on  yellows  iu  Delaware  iu  185(j Gl 

Hollyday,  Richard,  profitable  orchard  of 109 

Holmes,  Prof.  J.  C,  on  yellows  in  Europe    10 

Holmes,  Wells,  aud  Knapp,  rei>ort  on  yellows  iu  jNIicliigau 44,46 

Hoppin,  Rossiter,  yellows  in  orchiird  of 46, 47, 137 

Houghtou  Farm,  experiments  made  at 125, 127 

Hovey,  Charles  M.  : 

Ou  climate  as  a  cause  of  yellows 120 

On  longevity  of  Delaware  orchards G5 

Ou  yellows  in  Europe 10 

Howard,  L.,  ou  restriction  of  yellows 175 

Hoyt,  B.  C. : 

Sends  first  Michigan  peaclies  to  Chicago  , 40 

Sets,  budded  varieties 40 

Ships  first  budded  fruit  from  St.  Joseph 40 


INDEX.  227 

rage. 
Hiibbanlfttou.  Mich.  : 

Diseased  pits  planted  at , 145 

luoculated  trees  set  at 152^  15:3 

Hudson,  Alfred  : 

Time  leaves  fell  in  orchard  of ,.„.. 119 

Yellows  in  orchard  of Gl 

Hndsou,  John  : 

Orchard  (^f  {see  also  Orchards) 102 

Time  leaves  fell  in  orchard  of ,^ 119 

Hudson,  William: 

Diseased  orchard  not  troubled  hy  borers 159 

Orchard  of  {sie  also  Orchards) KJO 

Profitable  peach  crops  of 109 

Hunterdon  County,  N.  J.  : 

Chief  peach  region  o f  Ne \v  Jersey 2G 

Orchards  of 2G 

Yellows  in 26,27 

Hurdd,  Janies : 

Profitable  orchard  of 108 

Yellows  in  orchards  of 7C,^  Ifig 

Hurlock,  Samuel,  yellows  in  orchard  of 70 

Husted,  J.  D. : 

On  yellows  in  Georgia. gO 

Yellows  former! j^  not  at  Lowell,  Mich , 44 

Hutchius,  Harrison  : 

On  early  orchards  in  Michigan 39 

On  extent  of  orchards  in  West  Allegan r,j^ 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  at  Fennville 50 

On  inj  ury  done  by  yellows 50 

Reports  yellows  less  prevalent  on  light  sand I75 

Hypertrophy  not  a  symptom  of  yellows tj(3 

Illinois  : 

Peaches  not  grown  in  north  part  of 52 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 107 

Yellows  in 10  53  S2 

Incipient  yellows 140^  150 

Indian  peach  orchards 13  kj  34  35 

Indiana : 

Peaches  little  grown  in  iiorth  part  of f,2 

Yellows  in 10,  3S  53 

Individuality  in  plants I43 

Infertility  and  yellows - 1-^4 

Injury  by  borers,  how  distinguished  from  yellows 94 

Injury  by  root  aphides,  how  distinguished  from  yellows 94  95 

Inoculations,  result  of    , 22  34   151 

Insects,  decay  of  peach  trees  ascribed  to 17  1^ 

Insipid  peaches 36,37,86,102,157 

Iron  Hill,  Md. : 

Peach  growing  at (59 

Yellows  at _  70 

Jaundice  of  peach 1q 

Jenkins,  E.  H.,  analyses  under  direction  of 185 

Jenkins,  Howard  M.     (See  Charles  Downing.) 

Jersey  stump.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 


228  INDEX. 

Pago. 

Jester,  John  S.  : 

Dover  temperatui'e  record 117 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  Kent  County,  Del 64 

Johnson,  Dr.  S.  W.,  analyses  under  direction  of 1^5 

Johnstown,  Pa.,  yellows  near :?:? 

Jones,  Mr.  Thomas,  on  peaches  in  Georgia 14 

Journal  of  Horticulture,  The  London,  on  yellows  in  Eughiud  . 10 

Juniata  County,  Pa.,  on  yellows  in 33 

Kainit  for  yellows 78,128,129,130 

Kaliu,  Peter,  on  peaches  in  Pennsylvania  aud  New  Jer?- ey 14 

Kansas : 

Eefereace  to  peach  growing  in li)7 

Yellows  said  not  to  be  in 9 

Karsner,  G.  W.,  valuable  peach  farm  of 112 

Kedzie,  Dr.  R.  C.  : 

Analyses  by 124 

Finds  yellows  at  Benton  Harbor 44 

Kenrick,  William: 

On  early  treatment  of  New  Castle  orchards 55 

Yellows  not  in  New  England  in  1848 32 

Kent  County,  Del. : 

Commercial  orchards  in,  when  planted 62 

Early  seedling  orchards  of 20 

Field  studies  in 65 

First  appearance  of  yellows  in 64 

Great  orchards  in  north  part  of 62 

Healthy  old  orchards  in  south  part  of 67 

lufrequency  of  yellows  in  south  Kent 67 

Large  orchards  in 62 

Orchards  only  recently  diseased  in 66,  67 

Orchard  products  of 62 

Present  distribution  of  yellows  in 66, 67 

Present  large  peach  acreage  of 63 

Soil  aud  subsoil  of 64 

Timber  of 64 

Topography  of <'4 

Yellows  not  disastrous  till  recently , 65 

Kent  County,  Md.  : 

Distribution  of  yellows 76,77 

Extent  of  peach  growing  in 71 

Field  studies  in 74 

First  budded  orchards  of 71 

First  yellows  in 73 

Many  orchards  set  in 57 

Premature  peaches  in 76 

Present  peach  acreage  of 72 

Soil,  topography,  and  timber  of 71 

Thrifty  orchards  in 77 

Yellows  recently  very  destructive  in 74,76 

Kent  County,  Mich. : 

Extent  of  orchards  in 51 

Yellows  in,  period  of  immunity  from 51 

Kenton,  Del. : 

Orchards  at G2 

Y'ellows  at 63 


INDEX.  229 

Page. 

Kerr,  J.  W.,  on  yellows  in  Pennsylvania 33 

Kentucky,  yellows  in 10,82 

Kieserite 125 

Killeu,  George  W.,  yellows  in  old  orcbaid  of 157 

Kirtland,  B.,  analysis  by 182 

Kuapp,  S.  O.     {Sec  Holmes.) 

Kniglit,  Thomas  A.,  ou  eftect  of  contiuiied  propagation  by  buds,  etc 143 

Knorr,  A.  E.,  analyses  by 187 

Krusen,  Henry,  yellows  and  root  aphides  ou  farm  of 164 

La  Fayette,  Ind.,  diseased  pits  planted  at 145, 147 

La  Fleur,  G.  H.  : 

Experiments  with  diseased  pitii 143 

Inoculation  experiments  of 150 

On  advent  of  yellows  into  Casco,  Fennville,  and  Allegan,  Mich 50,174 

On  neglect  of  yellows  law 174 

On  prevalence  of  yellows  in  Allegan  County 50 

On  restriction  of  yellows 174 

On  severity  of  yellows  in  eastern  Allegan 51, 174 

Lake  County,  Ohio,  yellows  in 34 

Lake  Michigan  : 

Effect  on  orchards 52 

Peach  belt  on .' 50,52 

Lancaster,  Pa.,  jieach  diseases  at 20 

Lannin,  Joseph : 

On  restriction  of  yellows 173 

On  spread  of  yellows  at  South  Haven ,  Mich 48 

Large  orchards 20, 25,  40, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63,  71, 72 

Lasins  claviger,  Eogers 161,  162 

Laurel,  Del. ,  yellows  not  at Gti 

Law  of  New  York 207 

Laws: 

Argument  in  favor  of 178 

Enactment  of,  to  cover  portions  of  a  State 178 

Objection  to 177 

Of  Michigan 198,200,202 

Of  Ontario 203,204 

Lawton,  Mich.  : 

Commercial  orchards  planted  at , 48 

Distance  from  Benton  Harbor 48 

First  appearance  of  yellows  at , 48 

Hill  orchards  of 52 

Peach  shipments  from 49 

Profitable  orchard  at Ill 

Restriction  of  yellows  at 174 

Severe  winters  at 49 

Some  orchards  destroyed  at 49 

Lawton,  Hon.  C.  D. : 

Ou  first  appearance  of  yellows  at  Lawton 48 

Ou  results  of  Michigan  yellows  law 174 

Lay,  E.  D.,  yellows  formerly  not  at  Ypsilanti,  Mich 44 

Lay,  George  T. ,  profitable  orchard  of Ill 

Lazenby,  Prof.  W.  R.  : 

On  yellows  in  Ohio 34 

Plants  diseased  pits 146,147 


230  INDEX. 

Pago. 

Leaf-spot  fuugns 91, 1135 

Leaves  of  the  peach  : 

Conditious  that  control  ripeuingof 120 

Size  wheu  full  grown 88 

Time  of  fall  of Ill) 

Lebanon,  Del.,  yellows  at CG 

Legislation  on  yellows,  results  of 17 1 

Leipsic,  Del.,  orchards  and  yellows  at (>(),  98, 102 

Leiseniug,  D.  C,  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 136 

Light  soil  and  yellows 1:31,  132, 175 

Limbs,  yellows  causes  death  of 91 

Lime: 

Analyses,  Appeudix  A 1>^1 

Excess  of,  in  yellows l'J5 

Deficiency  of,  in  yellows 125 

For  yellows 23 

Lincoln,  Mass.,  peaches  once  abundant  at 31 

Lincoln  County,  Ontario,  yellows  in 38 

Linderman,  I.  S.,  yellows  formerly  not  at  Casco,  Mich 44 

Linn,  Robert,  yellows  in  orchard  of 49 

Lloyd,  Edward,  very  large  peach  trees  in  garden  of 20 

Lockport,  N.  Y".  ,  yellows  at 37 

Locust  Grove,  Md. : 

Early  appearance  of  yellows  near 73 

Experiments  with  diseased  pits  at 144 

Orchards  and  yellows  at 1()0 

Profitable  orchard  at '      108 

Yellows  in  old  orchard  at 15(5 

Y'^ellows  now  destructive  at 7G 

Lodge,  William  C. : 

On  former  extent  of  New  Uastle,  Del.,  orchards 59 

On  former  extent  of  peach  growing  in  Kent  County,  Del 02 

On  longevity  of  Delaware  orchards (i5 

Loudon  County,  Va.,  yellows  in 79 

Longevity  of  peach 26,  39,  40,  G'),  114,  1 57, 175 

Long  Island,  yellows  on : 29 

Louisiana: 

Decay  of  orchards  in 82 

Early  orchards  in 13,15 

Lovell,  George,  early  commercial  orchard  of 40 

Lynches  Station,  Md.,  yellows  at 76 

Lyon,  Hon.  T.  T. : 

On  advent  of  yellows  at  Sou  th  Haven 48 

On  early  peach  growing  iu  Michigan 41 

On  fii'sl  appearance  of  yellows  in  Van  Buren  County 46 

On  increase  of  peach  orchards  in  Michigan  49 

On  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 150 

On  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 13G 

On  yellows  at  Saint  Joseph,  Mich 45 

On  yellows  iu  Georgia 80 

Reports  increase  of  yellows  after  a  severe  winter 47 

Reports  yellows  from  western  New  York 37 

Urges  prompt  removal  of  diseased  trees 171 

Yellows  formerly  not  at  Plymouth,  Mich 44,51 


INDEX.  231 

Page. 

Madisou,  Wis.,  peaches  wiuter-kill  at 52 

Magnesia,  analyses,  Appendix  A 181 

Magnesium  oxide.     {See  magnesia.) 
Magnolia,  Del. : 

Orchards  and  yellows  at 104 

Profitable  orchards  at 108 

Value  of  peach  farms  in  vicinity  of 1 12 

Yellows  at GG 

Martin,  Hon.  E.  L. : 

On  immunity  from  yellows  in  Sussex  County,  Del G8 

Orchards  injured  by  winter,  but  not  by  yellows 122 

Root  aphis  in  orchards  of 10:3 

Maryland : 

Appearance  of  yellows  in 73 

Color  of  some  premature  peaches  in 86 

Cultivation  of  orchards  iu 141 

Orchards  formerly  healthy  iu 20,  73 

Peach  growing  in 69, 107 

Result  of  inoculations  iu 151 

Result  of  treatment  for  yellows  in 128 

Root  aphis  iu 94,160,  162 

Short  life  of  orchards  iu  some  parts  of 77,78 

Value  of  peach  farms  iu 111,112 

Yellows  iu 10,21,68 

Yellows  iu  mountains  of 79 

Yellows  moves  southward  in 76 

YelloWs  rare  or  absent  in  south  part  of 82 

Yellows  very  prevalent  iu  north  part  of 82 

Maryland  and  Delaware,  length  of  peach  season  iu 85 

Mary's  Choice.     (.See  Peach,  varieties  of. ) 

Masliu,  E.  W.,  official  statistics  of  California 177 

Massachusetts,  yellows  in 10,31 

Massachusetts  Agricultural  College,  analyses  by  Dr.  C.  A.  Goessmanu  at 184 

Massachusetts  Bay,  records,  etc.,  of 11 

Matlack,  Timothy,   on  peach  trees  iu  Pennsylvania 20 

Maxwell,  Dr.  W.  S.  • 

On  early  appearance  of  yellows  iu  Kent  County,  Md '  73 

Ou  yellows  iu  Cecil  County 70 

On  yellows  in  Harford  County 77 

Orchards  of  (see  also  Orchards) 96, 106 

Weather  record  of 118 

Yellows  in  orchards  of 76, 96, 106 

Mayuard,  Professor,  results  of  treatment  by 125 

McAllister,  peach  trees  planted  by 16 

McAlisterville,  Pa.,  yellows  ;it 33 

McBride  farm 109 

McCook,  Dr.  Henry  C, 161 

McCormick,  W.  H.,  on  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 137 

McDauiel,  Joseph : 

Nitrogenous  manures  and  yellows 142 

Orchard  of  (s<  e,  also,  Orchards) 106 

Time  leaves  fell  in  orchard  of 119 

McDouough,  Del.  : 

Former  profitable  orchard  near 59 


232  INDEX. 

Page. 

McDonougli,  Del. — Continued. 

Orchards  once  nuiueroas  but  now  gone  at CO 

Value  of  farms  about 112, 113 

Yellows  ouce  destructive  at TjS 

McGraw,  Dr.  James,  on  yellows  in  Harford  County,  Md 77 

Mechanical  injuries,  yellows  not  due  to 158 

Meehau,  Thomas : 

Cites  Dr.  Wood  on  use  of  potash  124 

On  yellows  in  Mississippi S2 

Melocoton.     (aScc  Peach,  varieties  of. ) 

Mercer  County,  N.  J.,  peach  disease  in 27 

Merchant,  L.  J. : 

Canvass  of  orchards  made  by 43, 46 

Ou  extent  of  fruit-growing  in  southwest  Michigan 43 

Merritt,  A.  C,  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 137, 138 

Michigan: 

Climate  of 51 

Conditions  under  which  yellows  appeared  in 134 

Early  peach-growing  in 39 

First  appearance  of  yellows  in. 41 

Frosts  in 1 15 

Hills  of,  peaches  grown  on 52 

Localities  free  from  yellows  in  1873 44 

Longevity  of  orchards  in 39,  40, 114, 175 

Mr.  Lyon  on  early  orchards  in 41 

Orchards  formerly  very  thrifty  in 41 

Peach  belt  of 52 

Peach  regions  of 52 

Present  extent  of  peach-growing  in .53 

Profitable  orchards  in Ill 

Reference  to  peach-growing  in 107 

Restriction  of  yellows  in 173 

Result  of  treatment  for  yellows  in 127 

Year  yellows  appeared  in 41 

Yellows  in,  references  to 10,  41,r3, 130 

.  Yellows  in,  period  of  immunity  from 42,53 

Yellows  law  in 170 

Yellows  laws  of 198,200,202 

Yellows  not  now  spreading  in 174 

Michigan  Agricult'.iral  College,  aualj'ses  raade  at 183 

Michigan  City,  yellows  reported  from 38 

Michigan  University,  analyses  made  at 180 

Micro-organisms,  passage  through  trees 108 

Middle  Georgia : 

Peach-growing  in 81 

Yellows  in 80,81,82 

Middlesex  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  in "27 

Middletown,  Conn.,  table  of  frosts  at 110 

Middle  town,  Del. : 

Few  orchards  now  set  at 01 

Few  peaches  now  shipped  from 01 

Former  great  ami  tliri  fty  orchards  at 58, 59,  GO 

Former  value  of  orchards  at 58 


INDEX.  233 

Page. 
MiddletovFD,  Coun. — Continued. 

Orchards  destroyed  by  yellows  at 61 

Peach  shipments  from 59, 60 

Value  of  farms  abont 1 12 

Yellows  now  destructive  at 58 

Miles,  Dr.  Mauley 106 

Milford,  Del. : 

Soil  aud  timber  north  of 64 

Yellows  formerly  not  at 65,67 

Yellows  at 67 

Yellows  iu  old  trees  at 157 

Millgrove,  Mich.,  esperimeuts  at 143, 150 

Miller,  Charles,  on  yellows  in  southern  New  Jersey 27 

Mills,  Superintendent  I.  N. : 

Clayton  temperature  records  from 118 

Peach  statistics  from 108 

Minch,  Eli,  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 1'<J5 

Minifie,  George,  early  orchard  of 11 

Mississippi,  yellows  reported  from y2 

Mississippi  Eiver: 

Peach  trees  discovered  on  hanks  of 13 

Yellows  not  west  of 9 

Missouri : 

Reference  to  peach-growing  iu 107 

Yellows  said  not  to  be  in 9 

Monmouth  County,  N.  J. : 

Appearance  of  yellows  iu  25 

Former  extensive  orchards  in 25 

Yellows  still  present  in 27 

Monterey,  Mich.,  budded  trees  set  at 39 

Moore,  John  B.,  on  yellows  near  Boston 31 

Moorehouse,  S.  B.,  pioneer  orchard  of 40 

Moore's  Favorite.     {See  Peach,  vaiieties  of.) 
Morissana.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of. ) 

Morrill,  R.,  recent  attempts  to  grow  peaches  at  Benton  Harbor,  Mich 178 

Morris  County,  N.  J. : 

Appearance  of  yellows  in 25 

Orchards  of , 26 

Yellows  in 27 

Morris,  Dolphin,  pioneer  peach-grower 39 

Morris,  S.  L.,  yellows  formerly  not  at  Holland,  Mich 44 

Morris,  Walter,  result  of  planting  health j"  seed  and  using  sound  buds 156 

Morris,  William  R.,  orchard  of  (see,  also,  Orchards) 103 

Morton,  Eleazur,  pioneer  peach-grower 41 

Mountain  Rose.     (.See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Mount  Pleasant,  Del. ,  orchards  at 58 

Mottled  peaches,  yellows  a  cause  of 86 

Mun.son,  A.  S.,  on  yellows  iu  Connecticut 30 

Murbach,  Lewis,  analysis  by 186 

Muriate  of  potash  for  yellows 125, 127 

My er,  D.  S.,  no  yellows  in  Sussex  County,  Del 65 

Myer,  James  H.,  no  yellows  at  Bridgeville,  Del 68 

"Natural  "seed 148 

Nectarine,  yellows  in 9 


234  INDEX. 

Page 

Neglect,  yellows  not  due  to 141 

Neill,  Kev.  Ed.  D  ,  refereuce  to  peucli  in  liistory  by 11 

Nematode  of  peach  roots 95 

Nettletou,  Heury  J.,  on  yellows  in  Couuecticut 31 

Newburgh,  N.  Y. : 

Restriction  of  yellows  at 172 

Yellows  at 29 

New  Castle  County,  Del. : 

A]jpearance  of  yellows  in 57 

Crops  of 54 

Extent  of  early  orchards  ia 55 

Few  old  orchards  no w  in 61, 6i 

Former  peach  acreage  of 61 

Great  orchards  in  south  part  of,  in  1870 5'J 

Great  success  of  orchards  in 55,  56 

Increase  of  orchards  in  south  part  of 58 

Location  of  early  commercial  orchards  iu 55 

Market  orchards  of 54 

Orchard  products-of,  from  census . . 6i 

Orchards  in ' 55 

Peaches  sliipped  f'om 58 

Present  number  of  trees  in ()"2 

Short  life  of  orchards  in 56,57,58,61 

Soil  of 5  J 

State  of  farming  iii 54 

Timber  of 54 

Yellows  now  destructive  in  south  part  of '. .  61 

New  England : 

Introduction  of  peach  into 11 

Yellows  in 32 

New  Haven,  Conn. : 

First  yellows  at 30 

Peach  on  plum  at 167 

Yellows  formerly  very  destructive  at 30 

New  Jersey : 

Diseased  trees  introduced  from 25,  35, 37,  42, 121,  150 

Early  method  of  cultivating  peaches  in 21 

Early  orchards  in 13, 15 

Present  distribution  of  yellows  in 27 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 107 

Root  aphis  in 94,160,  161 

Severe  winter  in 120 

Short  life  of  peach  trees  in 24, 25, 26, 140 

Treatment  of  yellows  iu  140 

Yellows  attributed  to  soil  poverty  iu 124 

Yellows  confounded  with  other  diseases  in 83 

Yellows  destructive  in  orchards  of 21,22,24,26 

Yellows  in 10,20,24,  32,  126 

New  York : 

First  orchards  in  west  part  of 34 

Premature  peaches  sold  from  orchards  of 36 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 107 

Yellows  (irst  appears  in 28 

Yellows  in 10,21,28,32,34,53 

Yellows,  law  of 171 


INDEX.  235 

Page. 

New  Zealaud,  peach  disease  iu 115 

Niaigara  Couuty,  N.  Y. : 

Successful  orchards  of , 3G 

Yellows  iu 33, -,50,  37 

Niagara  district,  Outario,  yellows  iu 38 

Nichols,  Colonel,  peaches  gro wa  hy 20 

Nicholson,  John,  on  peach  growing  in  Virginia 2') 

Nicholson,  John  R.,  rapid  spread  of  yellows  in  orchard  of 98 

Nicholson,  R.  G  ,  trees  inoculated  by 153 

Niles's  Register  on  peaches  iu  New  Jersey 25 

Nitrate  of  potash  for  peach  trees 1:24 

Nitrogenous  manures  and  yellows , 142 

Northampton,  Va.,  peaches  at 19 

Nowleu,  A.  E.,  on  lirst  appearance  of  yellows  iu  Michigan 42,  44 

Nurseries  and  yellows 30, 155, 157 

Oakland  Couuty,  Mich.  : 

Number  of  trees  iu 51 

Yellows  not  reported  from 51 

Obscure  buds,  growth  from,  in  yellows 87,  88, 92 

Odenton,  Md.,  yellows  at 79 

Odessa.  Del. : 

First  orchards  at 58 

Statistics  of  profitable  orchard  at ' 110 

Value  of  farms  about ]  12 

Y'ellows  destructive  at : 58 

Yellows  on  "  unpeached"  soil  at 133 

Yellows  treated  at 1 28 

Oglethorpe,  statements  attributed  to 14 

Ohio: 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in.   107 

Secretary  of  Stale  Horticultural  Society  ou  yellows  in 33 

Year  yellows  appeared  in  north  part  of 34 

Y^ellows  iu 10,  33, 53 

Oldmixou,  Sir  John,  ou  peaches  iu  Virginia 14 

Old  Mixon.     {Sec  Peach,  varieties  of,) 

Old  trees,  yellows  in 130, 156, 157 

Olds,  A.  A.,  on  restriction  of  yellows v 172 

Ontario : 

Peach  growing  iu  southwest  part  of 38 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 107 

Restriction  of  yellows  iu 17 il 

Yellows  in 10,37,53 

Yellows  la ws  of 17 1 ,  20.5,  204 

Yellows,  when  first  in 115,  170 

Ontario  Couuty,  N.Y.  : 

First  orchards  of 34 

Yellows  iu 37 

Opposition  to  yellows  law 170,  175 

Orange  Couuty,  N.  Y.,  yellows  iu  29 

Orchards : 

Fruit  thinned  iu 55 

How  tilled 55, 129,  14 1 

In  danger 113 

No.  1  (Maxwell) 90,130,132,133,134,142,192 


236  INDEX. 

Page. 
Orchards— Continued. 

No.  2  (Price) 97, 130, 132, 134, 142, 159,  I'JO 

No.  3(Price) 97,130,132,133,142 

No.  4  (Wilson) 98,142,172 

No.  5  (Wilson) 98,132,142,113,172 

No.  6  (Harper) 93,132,158,109,172,187,189 

No.  7(Shallcross) 100,132,133,157,159 

No.  8  (Hudson) 100,132,133,159 

No.  9  (Hudson) 102,133 

No.  10  (Deuney ) 102, 132, 133,  159 

No.  11  (Morris) 103,133,156,164 

No.  12  (Brothers)  104, 140, 142, 159, 169 

No.  13  (Hays)    104 

No.  14  (Green)  99, 104, 130,  132, 159, 163, 169,  172, 193, 195 

No.  15  (Barnard) ...105,132 

No.  16(Ridgely) 106,130,156,162,172 

No.  17(McDauiel) 106, 132, 133, 142 

No.  18  (Maxwell) 106,130 

Size  of,  in  Delaware 62,63,66 

Size  of,  in  Maryland 69,71,72 

O'Toole,  Michael,  branches  for  analysis  from  orchard  of 186 

Ottawa  County,  Mich.: 

Early  orchards  in 40 

Extent  of  orchards  in 51 

Yellows  in,  period  of  immunity  from 51 

Overbearing 72 

Overproduction  and  neglect,  effect  of 114 

Overproduction,  yellows  not  a  result  of 130, 156 

Oxide  of  iron,  analyses,  Appendix  A 181 

Parmelee,  George: 

Orchards  of 40,  41 

Profitable  orchard  of Ill 

Parry,  William  {see  Charles  Downing): 

On  premature  decay  of  peach  trees  in  New  Jersey  25 

On  proiits  of  peach  growing 109 

Paw  Paw,  Mich.  : 

Early  orchard  at 41 

Orchards  on  hills  at 52 

Yellows  appears  at 44,  48 

Paw  Paw  Lake,  Mich. ,  yellows  at 44 

Peach  : 

Early  history  of,  in  the  United  States 10 

Latitude  suited  to 121 

Longevity  of 114, 134,  157 

Origin  of 114 

Rapid  growth  of 13,14,16 

Peach  belt  of  Michigan,  location  of 52 

"Peach  Blossom"  farm  {sec  Cassiday)  : 

Profitable  orchards  on 109 

Reference  to.. - Ill 

Yellows  now  on ." 128 

Peach  center  of  Delaware 60,  ol 

Peach  curl  ..  .,„ 165 

Peach  diseases,  several  in  one  tree 84 

Peach  farms,  value  of Ill 


INDEX.  2o7 

Page. 
Peach  growiug : 

Exteui  of,  iu  Marylaiifl '^1 

Extent  of,  iu  the  United  States 1U7 

Net  profits  of H" 

Profitable  nature  of 30,55,56,57,00,69 

Statistics  of  very  profitable  orchards HO 

Yellows  puts  an  end  to "27,  37, 46,  57,  m,  17G 

Peacli  king '^^ 

Peach  mildew ^^'^ 

Peach  on  plum 1*^*' 

Peach  orchard  planted  by  French  traders -^9 

Pearch  orchards,  extent  of,  in  Maryland  and  Delaware Cn 

Peach  pits  for  nursery  stock I'lS)  l-^^ 

Peach  products  in  Delaware,  value  of 62,  6:5 

Peach  products  in  the  United  States   107 

Peach  rot 1^'^ 

Peach  rust 1^^^ 

Peach  season,  length  of,  in  Maryland  and  Delaware *^5 

Peach  shipments  from  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Peninsula 108 

Peach  stocks 24,25,26,28 

Peach  tree : 

Early  decay  of  (see  stqn-a,  New  Castle,  and  N.  J.,  and  infra,  Young  trees).  17, 19,21 

Early  papers  on  disease  of 17,20 

Most  subject  to  yellows 9 

Per  cent,  of  ash  in 1*^5,  l'-6 

Per  cent,  of  water  in l'^"'^>  1^6 

Product  of  a  single 1*^'9 

Very  profitable - ^1 

Peach  trees: 

Ashes  for 78,134,137 

Die  early  in  New  Castle  County,  Del 57, 58,  02 

Die  early  in  New  Jersey   . .'. 24, 25, 26 

Early  degeneracy  of 17, 18, 19 

Formerly  very  thrifty  in  Delaware 19,  58, 60 

Longevity  of I 18,  20, 23, 26, 35,  41, 53,  .58,  67, 75, 79, 106, 175 

Naturalized  iu  Georgia 81 

Number  in  Allegan  County,  Mich 51 

Number  in  Cecil  County,  Md 69 

Number  in  central  Georgia 81 

Number  in  Kent  County,  Del 63 

Number  in  Kent  County,  Md 72 

Number  in  New  Castle  County,  Del 62 

Number  in  Queen  Anne  County,  Mil 72 

Number  iu  Sussex  County,  Del 63 

Number  set  per  acre    46,53,55,63,  111,  129 

Sickly  shoots  upon 19, 87 

Soil  suited  for 21,30,35 

"Peached"  land,  yellows  on 129, 130, 133 

Peach,  varieties  of: 

Alberges 1"^ 

Amsdeu's  June 104,105 

Beers'  Smock 97,98.99,100,101,102,103,104,105,195,196 

Bilyeu's  October 85,98,104,195 

Brandy  wine 100 

Chinese  Cling  (so  called) 104 


238  INDEX. 

Pago. 
Peach,  varieties  of— Coutinued. 

Cbristiaua 96, 99, 100,  lOJ,  105, 192 

Clingstones 13, 16 

Crawford's  Early.  ..40,41,  49,  85,  97, 100,  101,  lO:?,  105,  111,  131),  139, 150,  1^4,  1^7, 190 

Crawford's  Late t5,  97, 98,  99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,  le6, 193 

Early  Alexander 104 

Early  Louise '. 85,  98 

Early  Rivers , 85,97,99,104 

Foster 10:5 

Fox's  Se(dlin<j 105,  lO'J 

Gary's  Hold  On 96 

Harker's  Seedling 100 

Heath  Cling 101 

Hill's  Chili 188 

Indian  or  blood 34 

Jersey  Stump 99 

Mary's  Choice 99,100 

Melocoton 14,6-2,  157 

Moore's  Favorite 101 ,  103 

Morissana 182 

Mountain  Rose 75,85,80,97,98,99,  100,101,102,103,160,185 

Newington 13 

Old  Mixou 85,86,97,100,102.104,105,157,180,189 

Plum  peaches 13 

Pullen's  Seedling 101, 103 

Red  rare-ripe 182 

Reeves's  Favorite 9o,  97,  98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 1 04,  105 

Sal  way 98,  104 

Shipley'8  Late  Red 98,  101 

Smock 85,  100, 102 

Snow's  Orange 41 

Stevens's  Late  Rare-ripe 103 

Stump  the  World. 85,97,98,102,  103,  104,105,212 

Susqtiehanna 100 

Troth's  Early 86,97,98,101,105,109 

Variegated  Free 100,101 

Ward's  Late  Free 101 

Waterloo 97 

Wilkins's  Cling 105 

Yellow  Rare-ripe 182 

Yorl.'s  Early 101, 109 

Peaches : 

Chinese  varieties  probably  not  hardier 114 

Cider  and  brandy  made  from 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,  54,63 

Climate  favorable  to 17, 52,  68,  81,  II 4 . 

Districts  adapted  to 36, 56,  58, 60,  68, 69,  77 

Enormous  size  of 13 

Excessive  production  of 55 

Fed  to  hogs 14, 15, 16 

Insipid  when  premafure 'Si'),  37, 102, 157 

Large  shipments  of 36,  19,  55,  58,  r;9, 60, 61, 108 

Not  carefully  cultivated 13, 16, 17 

Per  cent,  of  ash  in 195 

Per  cent,  of  water  in 195 

Premature  decay  of  (s«- a/so  ««j>ra,  Peach  tree) 17,21 


INDEX.  239 

Page. 
Peaches — Continued. 

lied  spotted  in  yellows 86 

Time  when  they  are  in  blossom 16 

When  ripe 16, 85 

Peaches  iu  the  United  States: 

Early  great  abundance  of 12, 13, 14,  lu,  16,28 

Early  price  of. 16, 85 

Formerly*not  budded 13 

When  introduced  into 11 

Pearson,  A.  J.,  ou  yellows  iu  Vineland,  N.  J 26 

Peck,  S.  B.,  yellows  formerly  not  at  Muskegon,  Mich 44 

Pedder,  James,  ou  the  Rey  bold  orchards 55 

Penhallow,  Prof.  D   P.: 

Houghton  farm  e>;periments  by 127 

Microscopic  examinations  by 125 

Ou  discolored  bark  iu  yellows 'J2 

Ou  restored  trees 139 

Ou  yellows  aud  soil  exhaustion   125, 126 

Ou  yellows  in  New  Jersey 26 

Ou  yellows  in  southern  New  York 2'J 

Peuu,  AVilliani,  iiuds  peach  trees  along  the  Delaware 12,13 

Pennington,  E.  B.,  ou  yellows  at  Port  Peuu,  Del 58 

Pennsylvania : 

Early  orchards  iu 14, 15,  16 

Refereuce  to  peach  growing  iu 107 

Yellows  iu     - 10,22,32,33,53 

Yellows  said  to  be  introduced  from 57 

Perrotet  orchard  planted  close,  but  not  subject  to  yellows 175 

Perry  County,  111.,  yellows  in 82 

Persia,  peach  in •. 114 

"  Persiau  race  "  of  peaches 114, 121 

Peters,  Judge  Richard  : 

Ou  premature  decay  of  peach  trees 17 

Ou  yellows  aud  rain- fall 122 

Peters,  Randolph.    (  See  Charles  Dowuiug.) 
Philadelphia: 

Earlj^  orchards  near 14, 15 

Peach  trees  short-lived  at 17 

Yellows  first  at 17,1^,19,83 

Y''ellows  first  restricted  to  vicinity  of 20,  21 

Yellows  in  vicinity  of 23 

Philadelphia  Society  for  Promoting  Agriculture 17 

Phosphoric  acid  analyses,  Appendix  A 1-;1 

Phosphates : 

Deficient  in  yellows 124 

Excess  of,  in  yellows 125, 194, 195, 196 

For  yellows 128, 129, 130, 140 

Phosphates  aud  phosphoric  acid  analyses,  Appendix  A 181 

Physic,  Littletou,  potash  for  peach  trees 124 

Pittsburgh,  Pa.  : 

Reported  free  from  yellows 33 

Yellows  near 33 

Plough,  Loom,  aud  Auvil: 

Ou  destructive  nature  of  yellows , 29 

On  early  decay  of  New  Jersey  aud  Delaware  orchards 24 


240  INDEX. 

Page. 
Plums : 

Not  subject  to  yellows  ...«, 9 

On  peach  stock - lijti 

Plum  stock,  peaches  on 2'2,  l()6 

Plymouth,  Conn.,  yellows  at 150 

Poland,  Ohio,  analysis  by  B.  Kirtlaud  at 182 

Polk,  John  P.  R. ,  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 125, 128 

Pollen,  supposed  .spread  of  yellows  by #. . . .  168 

Polycladia  in  yellows 87,90 

Polyporus  versicolor , 165 

Pomona,  Md.  : 

Thrifty  orchards  near 77 

Yellows  near 76 

Port  Penn,  Del.,  yellows  at 58 

Potash: 

Analyses,  Appendix  A 181 

Deficient  in  yellows 124, 125 

Excessive  in  yellows 194 

For  yellows 2:5,78,124,125,127,128,129,134,140 

On  supposed  lack  of,  in  yellows 126 

Potassium  oxide.     (/See  Potash.) 

Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.,  yellows  reported  from 29 

Premature  fruit : 

Description  of 85 

First  mention  of 21 

Inferiority  of , 85 

Kernel  abortive  in 90,  144, 145 

Much  inferior  in  yellows  the  second  year 90 

Sometimes  caused  by  borers 94 

Variability  of  ripening 85 

Premature  peaches : 

Distribution  on  tree 86 

Exceptional  color  of 86 

First  symptom  in  yellows 8:1 

Flavor  of 8l) 

Great  loss  from 66 

In  Cecil  County,  Md 70 

In  Georgia 80,  f-2 

None  or  very  few,  iu  Sussex,  Del 68 

Eare  at  Felton,  Del.,  in  1887 67 

References  to 22,28,  30,  32,  33,  :56,  61,75,  l(il 

Premature  pits: 

Dead  embryos  in. 144, 145, 146,  147, 14  S 

Diseased  seedlings  from 143, 144 

Trees  which  grew  from ; 144,  145, 147, 153 

Prescott,  Dr.  A.  H.,  analysis  made  under  direction  of 186 

Price,  Charles  H.  : 

Nitrogenous  manures  and  yellows 142 

Orchards  of  (see  also  Orchards) 76,  97 

Yellows  in  orchard  of 76,97 

Price's  Station,  Md.,  yellows  not  at,  in  18i7 75 

Prince  George  County,  Md.,  yellows  iu 79 

Prince,  William  : 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  southern  New  York 28 

On  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 149 


INDEX.  241 

Page. 

Prince,  William — Con  tinned. 

On  yellows  in  18:38 21 

Reference  to  book  by 42 

Urges  prompt  removal  of  diseased  trees 22 

Yellows  in  peaches  on  plnm  stock 167 

Prince,  W.  R. : 

On  destrnctive  nature  of  yellows 24 

On  csterminatiou  of  yellows 29 

Profits.     {Sec  Peach  growing.) 

Prolepsis  in  yellows - 87, 90 

Proud ,  Robert,  reference  to  peach  in  history  by  12,16 

Pruning: 

As  a  means  of  disseuiinating  yellows 155 

Neglect  of  . .    , 141 

To  remove  j'ello ws 47, 168 

Public  sentiment  necessary  to  secure  enforcement  of  law 178 

Puccinia  pruni-spinos.'e 165 

Pulaski  County,  111.,  yellows  in , 82 

Pullen,  Alex.: 

On  early  decay  of  peach  trees  in  New  Jersey 26 

On  longevity  of  Delaware  orchards 26,65 

Pulleu's  Seedling.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Quaker  Neck,  Md.  : 

Orchards  in 74 

Yellows  not  now  in  .„ 74,  75 

Queen  Anne  County,  Md.  : 

Distribution  of  yellows  in 76,  77 

Extent  of  peach  growing  in 72 

Field  studies  in 74 

Large  orchards  of 72 

Old  orchards  in 73 

Peach  acreage  of 72 

Soil,  topography,  and  timber  of 70,71 

Thrifty  orchards  in 77 

Value  of  real  estate  in Ill 

Quiun,  P.  T.     (See  Charles  Downing.) 

Race,  Henry,  incipient  yellows 139 

Raiu-fall  on  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  peninsula 122 

Rainy  seasons  and  yellows 18, 122 

Ramsdell,  .J.  G. : 

On  effect  of  Michigan  yellows  law 173 

On  spread  of  yellows  at  Sou  th  Haven 48 

Raum,  O.,  reference  to  peach  in  history  by 12 

Real  estate : 

Depreciation  in  value  due  to  yellows 112 

Peach  growing  enhances  value  of 58 

Red  Lion,  Del.,  orchards  in 55 

Red  Rare-ripe.    (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Reed,  James  L.,  pioneer  orchard  of 40 

Reed,  Jehu,  sets  a  budded  orchard  in  Kent  County,  Del.,  in  1829 62 

Reed,  Jehu  M.  : 

On  immunity  from  yellows 65 

Ou  yellows  in  Kent  County,  Del 64 

11245— No.  9 16 


242  INDEX. 

Page. 
Reeves,  Clement : 

Oil  prcniiiture  decay  of  trees  at  Delaware  City 56 

Ou  yellows  in  tlie  orchards  of  Isaac  Reeves 56 

Reeves,  Isaac  : 

First  New  Castle  orchards  planted  by 54 

Yellows  in  orchards  of 56 

Reeves's  Favorite.    (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Reid,  Robert,  on  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 1:57^  139 

Reid,  "William,  on  early  decay  of  jieach  trees  in  New  Jersey 25 

Remedies  for  yellows 2:5, 140 

Removal  of  diseased  trees  : 

Results  of  trial  in  Maryland  and  Delaware 172 

Results  in  Michigan 173 

Replants  not  in  special  danger 135,  ]36 

Restored  trees 139 

Restriction  of  yellows 176 

Reybold,  Anthony,  i)rice  paid  for  the  Cassiday  farm 69 

Reybold,  Major  Phillip,  New  Castle  orchards  of   54,55 

Reybold,  jr.,  Phillip,  early  lurije  nursery  of 55 

Reybold,  William: 

On  nature  of  Delaware  City  disease 56 

Yellows  in  orchards  of 57 

Rhode  Island 32 

Richland  County,  Ohio,  yellows  formerly  reported  from 33 

Rich  soil  and  yellows 141 

Rickards,  Joseph  A.,  on  yellows  and  use  of  fertilizers 129 

Ridgely,  Dr.  Henry  : 

Nitrogenous  manures  and  yellows 142 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  in  Kent  County,  Del 64 

On  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 150 

Orchard  of  (see  also  orchards) 106 

Profitable  orchards  of 109 

Weather  record  of 118,123 

Yellows  in  orchard  of 64 

Ridgeway,  Jacob : 

First  New  Castle  orchards  on  farm  of 54 

Great  success  of  orchards  of 55 

Yellows  on  farm  of 56 

Rising  Sun,  Del.,  orchards  and  yellows  at 105 

Riverside  Wharf,  Md.: 

Yellows  at 75, 76 

Reference  to  peach  growing  at 72 

Roadstown,  N.  J.,  yellows  at 27 

Robbins,  George,  introduces  peaches  into  Talbot  County,  Md 20 

Roberts,  Findley,  j'ellows  in  orchards  of 77 

Rochester,  N.  Y.: 

Success  with  peaches  at 35 

Yellows  at 35,37 

Rolph's  Wharf,  Md.: 

Ap])earance  of  j'ellows  at 75 

Increase  of  yellows  at 77 

Rosa,  J.  J. ,  yellows  in  very  old  trees  ou  farm  of 157 

Root  aphides: 

Cause  stunting  and  yellow  foliage 84,94 

"Dead  spots"  attributed  to 162 


INDEX.  243 

Page. 
Root  aphides— Continued. 

Description  of .•  164 

Destructive  nature  of 95 

Habits  of 1(31 

Injuries  duo  to ". 1(50 

In  nurseries 94 

Recovei'y  of  trees  attacked  by 163 

References  to 1U3, 160 

Symptoms  denoting  presence  of 94,  IGl 

Trees  injured  by 72  74,  94 

Where  common 94 

Young  trees  especially  subject  to  161 

Root  fungi 165,166 

Root  hairs,  dead,  in  yellows 166 

Root  knot  of  peach 95 

Root  jiruning,  effect  of 103 

Root  rot  in  peach 95 

Round  Toji,  Md. ,  former  largo  orchard  at 12 

Rupp,  Henry  L.,  on  yellows  in  Cumberland  County,  Pa 33 

Russel,  Gurdou  W.,  on  yellows  in  Connecticut 31 

Rutter,  John  : 

Lime  for  yellows 139 

On  yellows  at  West  Chester,  near  Philadelphia 23 

Yellows  and  rain-fall 122 

Saint  Clairsville,  Ohio,  yellows  formerly  reported  from 33 

Saint  George,  Del. ,  orchards  in 55 

Saint  Joseph,  Mich. : 

Committee  find  yellows  at 44 

Destruction  of  orchards  at 44, 45 

Early  orchards  near 39 

Effect  of  yellows  at 176 

Former  extensive  orchards  at 43 

First  budded  fruit  aet  at 40 

Peach  shipments  from 40 

Present  extent  of  orchards  at 46 

Yellows  appears  near 42, 45 

Yellows  becomes  destructive  at 44 

Saint  Mary's,  Md.,  early  peach  orchards  near 12 

Salem  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  in 27 

Salway,     {See  Peach,  varietiea  of.) 

Saratoga  County,  N.  Y.,  yellows  not  common  in 29 

Sargent,  H.  W.,  on  yellows  in  England 11 

Sassafras  Neck,  Md.,  orchards  in 69,  70, 128 

Sassafras  River,  Maryland : 

Orchards  near 69,71,72,96,97,99,100,106 

Severity  of  yellows  along 113 

Value  of  peach  farms  along Ill 

Yellows  very  prevalent  along 70,  73, 76 

Saugatuck,  Mich. : 

Appearance  of  yellows  in 49,50, 174 

Extent  of  injury  at 51 

Number  of  peach  trees  iii 50 

On  restriction  of  yellows  in I75 

Scharf,  J.  Thomas,  on  early  orchards  in  Maryland 12 

Scolytus 158 


244  INDEX. 

Page. 

Scout,  J,,  yellows  treated  by 128 

Seaford.  Pel.  : 

Borers  prevalent  at 159 

Hard  winter  does  not  cause  yellows  at 121, 122 

Peach-root  apliis  at , 1G3 

Yellows  not  at 68 

Secondary  growths  in  yellows 8S 

Secondary-  infectious 169 

Seedling  peaches,  early  orchards  of 39, 53 

Seedling  trees  with  yellows 142 

Sharp,  Mr. ,  ou  danger  of  importing  yellows  from  New  Jersey 25 

Shipley's  Late  Red.     (Sec  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Shipments  of  peaches 60,63, 108 

Shallcross,  Seerick : 

Former  large  orchards  of 60 

Former  value  of  peach  farms  of 112 

Shallcross,  T.  J.  : 

Diseased  jiits  collected  by 144, 145,148 

Experiments  with  diseased  pits 144 

Trees  Inoculated  by 152, 153 

Shallcross,  William: 

On  early  appeal auce  of  yellows  in  Kent  County,  Md 73 

Orchard  of  {see  also  Orchards) 100 

Shefter,  S.  G.,  on  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 136 

Shoots : 

Black-hearted 92 

Brittle  in  yellows , 92 

Diseased  above  and  healthy  (?)  belo-iv 89 

Shrewsbury,  N.  J.,  former  great  orchards  aud  large  peach  crop  at 25 

Signal  Service,  rain  charts  of 123 

Silica  : 

Analyses,  Appendix  A 181 

Supposed  excess  of,  in  yellows 125 

Sinclair,  Eobert: 

Ou  nature  of  yellows 78 

On  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 149 

On  yellows  near  Baltimore 78 

Urges  prompt  removal  of  diseased  trees 171 

Sillman,  jr.,  Benjamin,  yellows  in  garden  of 167 

Smalley,  I.  M.,  on  yellows  in  southern  New  Jersey 27 

Smith,  A.  M. : 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  iu  Ontario 37 

On  yellows  in  western  New  York 36 

Smith,  R.  K.  : 

Inoculated  trees  set  by 152, 1.53 

Plants  diseased  pits 145 

Smith,  "\Villiam  G.,  ou  yellows  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa 33 

Smith,  William  V. : 

Finds  few  premature  peaches  at  Felton,  Md •  67 

On  yellows  iu  Cecil  County,  Md ~0 

Smith  &  Bio.,  diseased  pits  collected  by 144, 145, 148 

Smock.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of. ) 

Smyrna,  Del. : 

Autumn  frosts  at 119 

Large  orchards  at 58,  60, 62, 63, 66 


INDEX.  245 

Page. 
Sniyrua,  Del. — Coutiuiied. 

Orchards  aud  yellows  near „„„ 100 

Yellows  at (56 

Yellows  treated  at 128 

Soda  analyses,  Appendix  A 181 

Soil  and  season,  peach  disease  ascribed  to 44, 123 

Soil  exhaustion  and  yellows 124 

Soil  moisture  and  yellows 140 

Soil : 

Character  of,  in  Michigan 134,  139, 18G 

Of  Delaware 54,55,59,64,131,132,1.33 

Of  Georgia 81 

Of  Maryland 71,188,190,  192,193 

Yellows  in  trees  on  all  kinds  of 131 

Somerset  County,  Md.,  no  yellows  in 76 

Somerset  County,  N.  J.,  reference  to  yellows  in 27 

South'Caroliua,  irregular  ripening  of  peaches  in 79 

Southern  States: 

On  yellows  in 10,  82 

Symptoms  of  yellows  in 80,89 

South  Haven,  Mich. : 

Committees  find  yellows  at 44,  46 

Distance  from  Benton  Harbor 47 

First  appearance  of  yellows  at 47 

First  orchards  at 40 

Gradual  spread  of  yellows  at 47,  48 

Many  orchards  planted  at 47 

Present  enforcement  of  yellows  law  at 175 

Present  extent  of  peach  growing  at 49 

Restriction  of  yellows  at 173, 175 

Yellows  and  soil  exhaustion  at 136,137,138 

Yellows  at,  period  of  immunity  from   48 

Yellows,  statistics  from 177 

South  Viueland,  N-  J.,  yellows  at 27 

South  Windsor,  Conn.,  yellows  at 31 

Spaniards'  Neck,  Md.  : 

Doubtful  cases  in 159 

Orchards  in , 72,74 

Profitable  orchard  in -      109 

Value  of  peach  farms  in 112 

Yellows  appears  in 75,77 

Yellows  formerly  not  present  in .  ^ 74,  75 

Sphterotheca  panuosa 1(35 

Spring  Lake,  Mich.,  severe  winters  at 121 

Stacy,  Mahlon,  finds  peach  trees  in  New  Jersey  in  1680 12, 13 

Stamford,  Ontario: 

Restriction  of  yellows  in 176 

Yellows  at 37,  38 

Starvation  aud  yellows 124-140 

Starvation  of  peach,  symptoms  of 95 

Stavely,  W.  F.,  on  yellows  in  New  Jersey 26 

Stevens's  Late  Rare-ripe.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Still  I'ond,  Md.  : 

Autumn  frosts  at 118 

Excessive  rains  at 123 


246  INDEX. 

Page. 
Still  Poud,  Md.—Cou tinned. 

First  yellows  at , - 73 

Orchards  and  yellows  at 74, 76, 96, 98, 99, 106 

Orchards  on  "  peached  land"  at 133 

Root  aphis  at 160, 164 

Yellows  iu  old  orchard  at 156 

Stocks,  yellows  communicated  to  healthy 1G4 

Stoddard,  Allen,  pioneer  peach-grower 40 

Stokes,  John,  yellows  and  root  aphides  in  orchard  of 164 

Stump  the  World.     (See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Stunted  peach  trees : 

Reference  to 74,  75 

Root  aphides  frequently  a  cause  of 94, 161 

Succession  of  varieties ^5 

Sudlersville,  Md. : 

Increase  of  yellows  around , 77 

Yellows  at 75,  76 

Sulphuric  acid  analyses,  Appendix  A Icil 

Summary  of  history  and  distribution 82,  83 

Susquehanna.     (5ce  Peach,  varieties  of. ) 

Sussex  Conutj',  Del. : 

Commercial  orchards  in,  when  planted 62 

Infertility  of  parts  of 131 

Large  orchards  in 62 

Orchard  products  of 62,  63 

Present  peach  acreage  of 64 

Severe  winter  in 121 

Soil,  tojiography,  and  timber  of 64, 131, 132 

Yellows  likely  to  appear  in 68 

Yellows  not  now  prevalent  in 68, 131 

Sylvester,  Dr.,  on  yellows  in  New  Jersey 24 

Table  I  (Maxwell) .' 96 

Table  II  (Price) „ 97 

Table  III  (Wilson) 98 

Table  IV  (Wilson) 99 

Table  V  (Harper) 100 

Table  VI  (Hudson) 101 

Table  VII  (Hudson) 102 

Table  VIII  (Denuey ) 103 

Table  IX  (Brothers) : 104 

Table  X  (Green)  105 

Taft,  Prof.  L.  R.  : 

Inoculated  trees  set  by 153 

Plants  diseased  pits 145, 146 

Talbot  County,  Md.  : 

Peaches  iu .,... 20 

Soil  of 71 

Tai)hrina  deformans 165 

Taylor,  James  F. : 

On  first  appearance  of  yellows  at  Douglas,  Mich 49 

On  injuries  done  by  yellows 51 

On  results  of  Michigan  yellows  law 175 

Yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 139 

Taylor,  John,  on  Mr.  Gercker's  peach  farm 63 

Taylor,  Yardiey,  on  yellows  iu  Virginia 79 


INDEX  24 t 

Page. 

Tennessee : 

Refcreuce  to  peacii  growing  in  107 

Yellows  reported  from '  0, 82 

"Teuuessee"  seed 148 

Teruiiual  shoots,  diseased  branching  of 89 

Terry,  H.,  on  yellows  in  Connecticut .* 'M 

Texas: 

Reference  to  peach  growing  in 107 

Root  rot  refiorttd  from  95 

Yellows  recently  reported  from 82 

Yellows  said  not  to  be  in 9 

Thomas,  David,  on  yellows  in  western  New  York 34 

Thomas,  J.  J. : 

On  early  culture  of  peach  in  western  New  York 34 

On  easy  culture  of  tlie  peach  in  western  New  York 35 

On  inl'requency  of  yellows 35 

On  avoidance  of  yellows 35 

On  transmission  of  yellows  by  budding 150 

Urges  prompt  removal  of  diseased  trees 171 

Thomas  &  Son,  I.  P.,  peach-tree  fertilizer  of 129 

Thompson,  James  W.  : 

On  destructive  nature  of  yellows 57 

On  early  treatment  of  New  Castle  orchards 55 

On  peach  acre  ige  in  Now  Castle  County 55 

On  speedy  decay  of  ])eaeh  trees  in  New  Castle  County 57 

Thompson,  James  W.,  and  Eyre,  Manuel,  large  orchard  of 54 

Thurber,  George.     {See  Charles  Downing.) 

Tighlmau,  James,  large  orchard  of 72 

Tilton,  Dr.  James,  on  premature  decay  of  peach  trees 19,  20 

Timber  of  Delaware 54,64,132 

Timber  of  Maryland 71 

Timber  of  the  Michigan  peach  belt 134,  130 

Tolchester,  Md. : 

Thrifty  orchards  near 77 

Yellows  near 77 

Tomicns 32 

Tomliuson,  D.,  reports  yellows  at  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y 29 

Topography  of  Delaware 54,  .55, 63,  04 

Topography  of  Maryland 70 

Town  send,  Del. : 

Former  great  orchards  at 59 

Present  condition  of  orchards  at 59 

Value  of  farms  about 112 

Yellows  de.structi  ve  at 58 

Townsend,  Samuel,  orchards  of 60,210 

Transplanting  and  yellows 131 

Troop,  Prof.  James : 

Inoculated  trees  set  by 153 

Plants  diseased  pits 145, 147 

Troth's  Early.     (Sie  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Tyron,  H.  G.,  on  yellows  in  Ohio 34 

Turner,  W.  W.,  on  yellows  in  Connecticut 30 

Ulster  County,  N.  Y.,  j-cllows  in 29 

Underground  examinations 162 

Union  County,  N,  J.,  yellows  in 27 


248  INDEX. 

Page, 

"  Uuioii  Farm  "  Delaware,  orchards  on 54 

Uuited  States  : 

Adaptability  of  peach  to  parts  of 114 

Areas  of  greatest  peach  productivity  in 107 

Quautitj^  of  peaches  grown- in 107 

Kipeniug  of  peach  in  middle  latitudes  of 8f> 

Value  of  peach  products 108 

Valliant,  E.  S. ,  yellows  appears  in  gardens  of 75 

Van  Buren  County,  Mich.  : 

Early  peach  growing  in 39 

Present  peach  acreage  of 49 

Profits  of  peach  growing  in Ill 

T.  T.  Lyon  on  appearance  of  yellows  in 46 

Yellows  destructive  in 48,  49 

Varieties,  yellows  attacks  all 142 

Variegated  Free.     {Ste  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Viala,  M.  Pierre,  yellows  not  in  France 10 

Vigorous  trees,  yellows  in 132,  138 

Villa  Ridge,  Ill.j  yellows  near H2 

Viueland,  N.  J.  : 

First  peaches  grown  at 25 

Peach  trees  formerly  vigorous  at 25 

Yellows  at 25 

Vineyard,  Ga. ,  yellows  at 80 

Virginia : 

De  Vries  finds  peach  trees  in 11 

Early  orchards  in 12,  13, 14,  16,  17 

Longevity  of  peach  in 114 

Yellows  iu 10,  79 

Yellows  rare  or  absent  in 82 

Virgin  soil,  yellows  on 135, 136 

Von  Thiimeu,  on  effect  of  continued  propagation  by  buds 143 

Wade,  J.  P.,  on  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion 136 

Ward's  Late  Free.     (-See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Warren,  William  G.,  on  yellows  in  Pennsylvania 32 

Warren  County,  N.  J.,  yellows  in 27 

Washington,  D.  C. : 

Autumn  frosts  at 120 

Yellows  iu ••  79 

Washington  Couutj",  Md.,  yellows  in 79 

Washtenaw  County,  Mich. : 

Cold  winters  in 121 

Yellows  not  in 121 

Water-courses,  peach  growing  near 36, 72 

Waterloo.     (<See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Waters,  D.  K.,  yellows  formerly  not  at  Spring  Lake,  Mich 44 

Watervliet,  Mich.,  yellows  at 44 

Wayne  County,  Ind.,  yellows  reported  from 38 

Wayne  County,  Mich.,  yellows  formerly  not  in 51 

Weatherby,  Charles,  yellows  appears  in  orchards  of 75 

Webb,  Wesley,  on  yellows  at  Iron  Hill,  Md 70 

Welland  County,  Ontario,  yellows  in 38 

Wells.  H.  G.     (See  Holmes.) 


INDEX.  249 

Page- 
West  Cliester,  Couu.,  yellows  at ,- -^IJ 

Westchester,  Pa.,  j-ellows  at 23, 12'2 

West  Virgiuia,  yellows  iu 10 

Wet  seasous,  diseased  growths  more  abundant  iu 123 

Wet  spots  aud  yellows l"!^ 

Wet  subsoil,  effect  ou  peach  trees 95 

Wheeler,  Charles  F.,  plauts  diseased  pits 145 

Wheeler,  John  C,  ou  yellows  in  southern  New  Jersey 27 

White,  William  H.,  on  yellows  iu  Conuecticut 31 

Whittlesey,  John,  on  peach  shipments  from  Berrien  County 43 

Wiley,  D.  W. : 

On  results  of  Michigan  yellows  law 1"5 

On  yellows  and  soil  exhaustion l'^'',  139 

Yellows  in  orchard  of ^^^ 

Wilkins,  Col.  Edward  C. : 

Large  Maryland  orchards  of • '1 

On  yellows  in  New  Jersey 24, 26 

Remarkably  profitable  orchard  of H" 

Yellows  and  root  aphides 1"1 

Yellows  in  orchards  of '"^ 

Wilkins,  Mrs.  S.  A.,  yellows  appears  in  orchard  of '6 

Wilkins'  Cling.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Williams,  D.  B.,  statistics  on  restriction  of  yellows 1~'' 

Williams,  Heury  T. : 

On  size  of  Delaware  orchards "'■' 

Peach  shipments  from  Delaware - 58 

Williams,  John : 

Early  orchard  of --•  ^1 

On  yellows  at  South  Haven 46 

Willoughby,  Ohio,  yellows  at •^'* 

Wilmington,  Del.,  yellows  at 1^ 

Wilmington  Journal,  on  early  orchards  of  New  Castle  County 55 

Wilson,  J.  Frank  : 

Orchards  of  (.see  also  Orchards) 76,98 

Yellows  in  old  orchard  of 141)  156 

Yellows  in  orchards  of <6,  J8 

Wilson,  Samuel,  on  the  Burnett  orchard "^9 

Wilson,  S.  H. : 

On  yellows  in  Baltimore  County,  Md "^ 

Tries  pruning  for  yellows 1"!^ 

Winchester,  A.  O.,  on  first  appearance  of  yellows  iu  Michigan 42,45 

Winlerbotham,  W.,  on  peaches  in  Maryland  aud  Virgiuia l^j 

Winter  buds,  yellows  induces  premature  growth  of 89,154 

Winters,  effect  on  peach  trees 28,  30,  41,  47,  49,51,  52 

Wiconsin  : 

Comparison  of  Michigan  with •'" 

Peaches  not  grown  in "^•' 

Witch  brooms. ^~'^^ 

Wood,  Dr.,  potash  aud  yellows l"'* 

Wood  ashes 78,134,137 

Woodward,  J.  S.,  orchards  destroyed  by  yellows •'' 

Wolverton,  Linns — 

On  appearance  of  yellows  in  Ontario •■ ^' 

On  restriction  of  yellows ''^ 

On  results  of  Outai'io  yellows  law 1'" 


250  iNDEx. 

Wright,  Charles:  ^^^^' 

Borers,  but  no  yellows,  iu  orchards  of 159 

Orchards  injured  by  winter 12ii 

Wye  House,  Maryland,  old  peach  trees  at 20 

Wyoming,  Del.,  yellows  at 66 

Yellow  Kare-ripe.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

Yellows: 

Abnormal  growth  of  shoots  in 87,88,89 

Age  of  trees  affected  l)y  (see  also  infra,  Young  trees) 66, 67 

Ants  and  root  aphides  in 162 

Appearance  of,  at  Milford,  Del 67 

Appearance  of,  iu  Cecil  County,  Md 70 

Appearance  of,  iu  Queen  Anne  County,  Md 75 

Appropriateness  of  the  term 76 

Ascribed  to  rainy  weather 18 

Ashes  as  a  remedy  for 78,  I'M 

Attributed  to  borers 75,78, 158 

Bacteria  and 166 

California,  not  iu 9,  177 

Causes  early  decay  of  trees 30 

Centreville,  Md.,  free  from 74,77 

Chinese  Cling  (so-called)  iu  Delaware  subject  to 114 

Climate  as  a  cause  of 23,  115 

Cold  winters  not  a  cause  of. 120 

Color  of  foilage  in  second  stage  of 76,91 

Communicable  nature  of. . 22,78, 149 

Condition  of  roots  iu 165 

Confined  to  the  United  States 9, 10 

Confusion  due  to  use  of  term 84 

Cultivatidn  not  a  cause  of 141 

Cultivation  not  a  remedy  fur _. .56, 141 

Danger  of  introduction  of , 35,6-^,  177 

Death  of  limbs  in 91 

Defects  of  Michigan  law ,„ 171 

Defects  of  Ontario  law 171 

Densely  planted  areas  most  subject  to 83 

Depauperate  growths  in 87,  89 

Destructive  in  Cecil  County,  Md 70 

Destructive  nature  of . . . .  29,  30,  31 ,  32,  36,  37,  38,  44,  45, 51, 56, 58,  91,  96, 120, 133,  157 

Digest  of  symptoms 93 

Diseased  shoots  a  second  symptom  of „ 87 

Diseased  shoots  may  not  appear  until  second  year 90 

Diseased  terminal  growtli  iu _. 80,89 

Diseased  trees  do  not  recover  from .  _ 91 ,  123 

Diseases  likely  to  be  confou nded  with 93 

Distribution  of _ 9,83 

Distribution  of,  in  Maryland _ 77,78,  79 

Downing  on  restriction  of ._ 172 

Duration  of  diseased  trees 91 

Early  orchards  destroyed  by 21 

Englaud,  reported  appearance  of,  in 11 

Europe,  not  in 10 

Excision  experiments - 47,168 


Index.  251 

Page. 
Yellows — Contiuued. 

Extension  since  1830 23 

Feeble  and  dead  limbs  in 88 

Fertilizers  as  a  preventive 97,103, 1'29 

Field  studies  of 65,  70 

First  appearance  of 17, 19 

First  appearance  of,  at  South  Haven 4(5,47, 137 

First  appearance  of,  in  Ontario 37^  176 

First  clear  accouut  of 19 

First  symptoms  of 90 

Foliage  and  branches  normal  at  first 87 

Former  immunity  from 41,48,50,54,64,65,69,73,78 

Frosts  not  a  cause  of 115 

Functions  of  tree  disturbed  in 88 

Fungi  and 165 

Gradual  spread  of 47.48,49,50,73,77 

Groups  of  trees  suffering  from 59,  76, 140 

Gummosis  in 168 

Hasty  growth  in 88 

Healthy  trees  grown  in  place  of  diseased  ones 47, 135, 136, 175 

History  and  distribution  of 9 

How  to  deal  with 171 

How  to  exterminate 29,  64, 78, 175 

Immunity  from 68,74, 177 

In  Connecticut 29,  115 

In  lawns  and  gardens 134 

•   In  rapidly  growing  trees 1,32, 138 

In  seedlings l;}  I 

In  the  south 79, 121 

Increase  of,  in  Qneen  Anne  County,  Md 77 

Inoculation,  produced  by 22,34, 149 

Inoculations,  Lot  1 154 

Inoculations,  Lot  II 155 

Insipid  peaches  due  to , 37,86, 102, 157 

Inspector,  duty  of,  in  Ontario , 171 

Internodes  ftiil  to  develop  in tS 

Introduced  from  Pennsylvania 57 

Introduced  from  United  States 11,37,38 

Introduced  from  New  Jersey 24, 25,  35,  37,  45,  68,  82 

Kenton,  Del.,  now  at 63 

Languishing  appearance  of  trees  with , 24,76,91 

Late  autumn  growth  in 88 

Law^  difficult  to  enforce 113, 170 

Law,  effect  of , 49,135,171 

Law,  enforcement  of,  in  Ontario 176 

Law  of  Michigan,  synojisis  of 170 

Law  of  New  York .' 171 

Law,  where  in  force 170 

Laws  relative  to 1*0, 198 

Liability  to  error  in  diagnosis  of 83,93, 127 

Literature  of 83 

Loss  from,  at  Saint  Josepli  and  Benton  Harbor 45,176 

Losses  d  ue  to 96 

Manner  of  spread  of 154, 155 


252  INDEX. 


Yellows— Continued. 

MiddJetowUjUel.,  orchards  killed  by CO 

Mississijipi  River,  not  west  of  (?)  9 

Much  iouorant  writing  upon ^3 

Nature  of 84 

Necessity  for  legal  enactments 177 

No  variety  of  peach  exempt  from 142 

Not  in  southern  Delaware 121 

Not  ordinarily  in  trees  until  mature 23 

Number  of  aliected  orchards  in  Maryland 70,  76,  77 

Nurseries  not  entirely  responsible  for 155 

Obscure  nature  of 9,  ri7 

Old  trees  attacked  by 130, 156,  ir)7 

On  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  peninsula 96, 116 

On  diagnosis  of 13S,  140 

On  Long  Island,  N.  Y 21 

On  restriction  of 22, 29,  30,  35, 38,  49, 170 

On  transmission  to  healthy  stocks  by  budding 151, 152, 154 

On  working  of  law  in  Michigan 1*4, 175, 176 

Orchard  treated  for 128 

Orchards  exterminated  by 24,25,  45,57,60,61 

Orchards  quickly  destroyed  by  56, 97 

Origin  of  the  term 9,18,19 

Other  diseases  mistaken  for 84, 162 

Overbearing  not  a  cause  of 96,  97, 103, 104, 106, 107 

Peach  on  plum  attacked  by 167 

Peach  protitable  in  spite  of 28,  49 

Per  cent,  of  annual  loss  from 174, 177 

Per  cent,  of  trees  diseased  by. 27,  50,  96,  97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107,  174 

Periodical  outbreaks  of 29.61,84 

Plants  subject  to 9 

Polycladia  in 87,  8'J 

Prevalence  of,  supposed  reason  for 30 

Progressive  nature  of .^ 91 

Prolepsis  in 87, 89 

Proportion  of  infected  orchards  i n  Delaware 62, 66, 67,  68 

Pruning  does  not  prevent 78 

Rain-fall  and 122 

Rapid  spread  of 70, 97, 116 

Reason  for  the  name 91 

Recent  appearance  of,  in  region  of  the  Great  Lakes 115 

Recent  great  increase  of,  in  Maryland  and  Delaware 66,  70, 74 

Remedies  for ' 23, 27,  30, 136, 137, 138,  139 

Replants  not  specially  subject  to 47, 136, 175 

Responsibility  of  fruit-growers  for  spread  of 176 

Restriction  of,  at  Law  ton,  Mich 174 

Result  of  legislation 171 

Result  of  compliance  with  yellows  law  at  Douglas,  Mich 175 

Result  of  compliance  with  yellows  law  at  South  Haven,  Mich 173, 175 

Result  of  compliance  with  law  in  Allegan  County,  Mich 174 

Result  of  legislation  in  Michigan 173 

Result  of  legislation  in  Ontario 176 

Root  aphides  not  the  cause  of lf'3 


INDEX.  253 

•  Pago. 

Yellows — Contiuued. 

Sizeaud  color  of  foliage  in 88,89,91,92 

Soil  exhaustion  as  a  cause  of . .  .23, 27, 33, 37,  50,  58, 00, 78, 96, 100, 102, 103^  104, 106, 

107, 124 

Soutlieru  limit  of,  unknown 10 

Southern  movement  of,  in  Maryland  and  Delaware 68, 76 

Speciiic  nature  of 84,93 

Speedy  destroyer  of  trees 56, 58,  61, 66,  78, 97. 100, 101,  102, 103 

Spread  ascribed  to  budding  in  nursery 23, 45, 149 

Spring  growth  healthy  in  early  stage  of 87,99, 106 

Starvation ,  effect  of,  confounded  with 84, 95 

Statistics  concerning  the  spread  of 96, 172, 177 

Statistics  of,  in  New  Jersey 27 

Still  present  at  South  Haven,  Mich 48,176 

Supposed  communicability  of 30,  31 

Supposed  parasitic  nature  of 166 

Supposed  spread  by  pollen 168 

Supposed  spread  by  pruning 155 

Supposed  spread  by  root  contact 22 

Supposed  spread  through  blossoms 22, 31 

Sussex  County,  Del.,  still  nearly  free  from 68 

Symptoms,  detailed  account  of 85 

Symptoms  of 22,27,28,32,33,37,75,84 

Symptoms  of,  in  Georgia 79,  81 

Symptoms  of  second  year 90 

Symptoms  of  third  year 91 

Synopsis  of  present  Michigan  law 170 

Thrifty  trees  attacked  by  (see  also  infra,  Young  trees) 31,  37,  77, 97, 102,104, 

105, 106, 107, 132, 138 

Tufted  growths  in 88,92 

Universality  of  its  influence 131, 134 

"  Unpeached  ground"  equally  subject  to 58, 133 

Views  of  Michigan  growers  respecting  nature  of 173 

Virulent  nature  of 158 

What  constitutes  a  cure 127 

Where  first  discovered 9 

When  first  in  Allegan  County,  Mich 174 

When  first  in  Kent  County,  Del 04 

When  first  in  Kent  County,  Md 73 

When  first  in  Michigan 41,42 

When  first  in  west  Georgia 81 

Where  prevalent  in  the  United  States 10 

Where  most  widely  prevalent  in  Kent  County,  Del 65, 66 

Where  iiersoually  observed 10 

Willowy  growth  in 87 

Young  trees  affected  by 21, 28,  30,  43, 56,  58,  62, 77,  80,  104,  110,  130,  131,  133 

154; 157 

Yellows  at  Delaware  City — 

First  appearance  of 56 

Rapid  spread  of 56 

Yellows-infected  trees — 

Sometimes  brought  from  the  nursery 149 

Trees  remain  healthy  when  set  in  place  of 49,136 


254  INDEX. 

Page. 
Yellows  law — 

Michigan,  1875 11)8 

Michigan,  1879 200 

Michigan,  1881 202 

New  York 207 

Ontario,  1881 20:5 

Ontario,  1884 204 

Yoemans,  John  L,,  on  yellows  in  Connecticut 31 

Yoeniaus,  William  C,  on  yellows  in  Connecticut 31 

York  County,  Pa.,  yellows  in 33 

York's  Early.     {See  Peach,  varieties  of.) 

o 


